Lewis v. State
158 A.3d 982
Md.2017Background
- Grant Agbara Lewis, a Colorado resident, was summoned to Maryland under the Maryland Uniform Act to testify at Alexander Bennett’s murder trial; Colorado courts ordered Lewis to appear and he waived a show-cause hearing.
- On the day Bennett pled guilty, Bennett made a proffer implicating Lewis; Maryland authorities then arrested and charged Lewis with first‑degree murder and related offenses.
- Lewis did not raise in the circuit court that his arrest violated CJ § 9‑304(a) (the statutory exemption from arrest/service of process for persons who enter to testify pursuant to a summons); he raised the claim for the first time on appeal.
- The Court of Special Appeals affirmed Lewis’s convictions, holding the § 9‑304(a) challenge was waived for failure to file a timely pretrial motion under Md. Rule 4‑252.
- The Court of Appeals granted certiorari and affirmed: it held the § 9‑304(a) challenge was subject to mandatory pretrial motion rules (Md. Rule 4‑252) and thus waived; it declined to exercise discretionary review under Md. Rule 8‑131(a).
Issues
| Issue | Lewis's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an out‑of‑state witness who enters Maryland under a summons and is then arrested may challenge under CJ § 9‑304(a) on appeal if not raised pretrial | Lewis: § 9‑304(a) prevents Maryland from prosecuting matters that arose before his entrance; waiver should require an express, in‑court waiver like extradition | State: Such challenges fall under “defect in the institution of the prosecution” and must be raised by pretrial motion under Md. Rule 4‑252; failure to do so waives the claim | Held: Waived — defendant must raise § 9‑304(a) pretrial under Md. Rule 4‑252; appellate court declines discretionary review under Md. Rule 8‑131(a) |
| Whether CJ § 9‑304(a) requires an express written waiver analogous to extradition statute CP § 9‑124 | Lewis: By analogy to extradition, waiver must be express and in open court after advice; otherwise courts evade accountability | State: Not analogous; criminal‑process and extradition statutes differ; Rule 4‑252 governs preservation | Held: No express waiver required by § 9‑304(a); the General Assembly omitted such a requirement and Rule 4‑252 governs preservation |
| Whether the Ker‑Frisbie / Doctrine of Specialty prevents prosecution after person is brought to state to testify | Lewis: Analogous to Doctrine of Specialty, § 9‑304(a) should limit prosecution to the purpose for which he was brought | State: Doctrine of Specialty applies to extradition/international comity, not summons under the Uniform Act | Held: Doctrine of Specialty inapplicable; even if arrest irregular, physical presence confers jurisdiction under Ker/Frisbie and any objection is forfeited if not timely raised |
| Whether appellate court should exercise discretion under Md. Rule 8‑131(a) to consider unpreserved § 9‑304(a) claim | Lewis: Extraordinary facts justify discretionary review; fairness and judicial accountability warrant review | State: No recurring error, guidance, or collateral‑attack concern; unfair to allow sandbagging on appeal | Held: Discretion declined — no grounds (recurring error, likely new trial, or collateral‑attack assistance) to review unpreserved issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Ker v. People of State of Illinois, 119 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1886) (forcible abduction does not deprive court of jurisdiction to try defendant)
- Frisbie v. Collins, 342 U.S. 519 (U.S. 1952) (reaffirming Ker: manner of bringing defendant into jurisdiction does not defeat trial jurisdiction)
- Rigor v. State, 101 Md. 465 (Md. 1905) (Maryland precedent that trial right rests on crime within jurisdiction and defendant’s presence)
- Clark v. State, 284 Md. 260 (Md. 1979) (Ker‑Frisbie principle is consistent with Maryland law)
- State v. Breeden, 333 Md. 212 (Md. 1993) (discussing the Uniform Act’s purpose and noting § 9‑304 grants witness exemption)
- McGuire v. State, 200 Md. 601 (Md. 1952) (illegal return to state does not affect jurisdiction)