Newton v. State
168 A.3d 1
| Md. | 2017Background
- In 2004 Donta Newton shot at Jerrell Patillo; Newton was tried twice after a mistrial; at the second trial an alternate juror was seated when one juror was excused and the court, prosecutor, and defense counsel agreed the alternate could sit in the jury room during deliberations but was instructed not to participate.
- The jury convicted Newton of attempted first-degree murder and handgun offenses; Newton appealed (did not raise the alternate-juror issue) and convictions were affirmed.
- Newton filed a postconviction petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel (for consenting to the alternate’s presence), ineffective assistance of appellate counsel (for not arguing plain error), and trial-court error; the postconviction court granted relief and ordered a new trial.
- The Court of Special Appeals reversed, holding trial counsel made a reasonable tactical choice and appellate counsel was not deficient; this Court granted certiorari on counsel-effectiveness questions.
- The Maryland Court (majority) applied Strickland to both trial and appellate counsel claims, held that (1) the presence of the alternate—consented to by defense counsel and accompanied by an instruction not to participate—did not amount to structural/fundamental unfairness in this case, and (2) appellate counsel was not shown to be prejudicially deficient because the claim would likely fail as plain error (Olano-type review).
- The majority therefore affirmed the Court of Special Appeals; a dissent would have found trial counsel deficient and prejudicially so because consent foreclosed presumed-prejudice treatment under Stokes and forced a harder plain-error standard on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Newton's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for consenting to an alternate juror’s presence during deliberations | Counsel was ignorant of Stokes and could not make a valid strategic choice; alternate’s presence is structural so prejudice is presumed | Counsel made a reasonable tactical decision; alternate was instructed not to participate so no presumption of prejudice | Not ineffective: Strickland applies; no presumed prejudice and Newton did not show actual prejudice or fundamental unfairness |
| Whether appellate counsel was ineffective for not arguing plain error about the alternate’s presence | Failure to raise plain error forfeited a presumed-prejudice Stokes argument on direct appeal | Raising the issue would likely fail under plain-error review (Olano); counsel need not raise every issue | Not ineffective: Newton failed to show a reasonable probability the omitted issue would have prevailed on appeal |
| Whether presence of alternate during deliberations is structural error automatically requiring reversal | Newton: Stokes presumes prejudice when alternates join deliberations | State: Olano and follow-on precedent show unobjected-to alternates do not automatically require reversal | Presence can be structural on direct appeal when preserved (Stokes), but when defense consented or failed to object Olano/plain-error framework governs; here consent and instruction weighed against presumption |
| Proper standard for postconviction review of preserved/unpreserved jury-alternate error | Presumed prejudice should carry into ineffective-assistance claims | Strickland governs postconviction; Weaver explains structural-error presumption does not automatically satisfy Strickland prejudice | Strickland governs; Weaver permits higher scrutiny on postconviction—defendant must show Strickland prejudice even for structural errors |
Key Cases Cited
- Stokes v. State, 379 Md. 618 (Md. 2004) (held alternates in jury room during deliberations is error and adopted a presumption of prejudice when preserved)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (U.S. 1993) (unobjected-to alternates retained during deliberations do not automatically warrant reversal; plain-error/actual-prejudice framework applies)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-prong test for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Weaver v. Massachusetts, 137 S. Ct. 1899 (U.S. 2017) (structural errors do not automatically satisfy Strickland on collateral review; postconviction review requires Strickland prejudice showing)
- Savoy v. State, 420 Md. 232 (Md. 2011) (structural error in reasonable-doubt instruction; preserved error led to reversal; unpreserved error considered under plain-error)