Harrod v. State
31 A.3d 173
Md.2011Background
- Harrod was charged with possession with intent to distribute cocaine and assault in the second degree; first trial ended with mistrial after the chemist testified and was cross-examined.
- A new trial was scheduled; five days before retrial, defense sought continuance due to a family emergency, and the State did not guarantee the chemist would appear.
- The retrial proceeded on the original date; the State moved to admit the chemist’s testimony and the chemist’s report without the chemist’s presence, relying on Section 10-1001 and 10-1003.
- The trial court admitted the chemist’s report without the chemist present unless Harrod demanded her presence, and allowed the chemist’s testimony and report into evidence.
- Harrod argued the notice requirement under Section 10-1003 was not satisfied and the chemist’s absence violated his Confrontation Clause rights; the Court of Special Appeals affirmed without addressing the confrontation issue due to lack of trial-court objections.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that failure to provide timely notice under 10-1003 before retrial was error and not harmless, requiring a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 10-1003 notice is required before retrial for admitting a chemist's report without presence | Harrod | State | Yes; notice required prior to retrial |
| Whether the notice failure was harmless or prejudicial | Harrod | State | Not harmless; prejudicial error requiring new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Best v. State, 79 Md.App. 241 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1989) (noting 10-1003 as safety catch)
- Gillis v. State, 53 Md.App. 691 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1983) (requirement to produce witnesses when statute not complied)
- Knight v. State, 41 Md.App. 691 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1979) (no notice; reversal for chemist testimony issue)
- State v. Neal, 144 Wash.2d 600 (Wash. 2001) (strict compliance with notice rules required)
- Miller v. State, 170 N.J. 417 (N.J. 2002) (notice to admit lab certificate must include copy of data)
- Dorsey v. State, 276 Md. 638 (Md. 1976) (harmless error standard for erroneous evidence)
- Parker v. State, 408 Md. 428 (Md. 2009) (informant statements and harmless error analysis)
- Evans v. State, 420 Md. 391 (Md. 2011) (statutory interpretation framework)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (Confrontation Clause cross-examination framework)
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, U.S. (U.S. 2009) (lab reports with confrontation requirements)