Nicolas v. State
426 Md. 385
Md.2012Background
- Dec. 12, 2009: Montgomery County incident; Nicolas questioned by police at home after 911 call about a hit-and-run.
- J jury convicted Nicolas of resisting arrest and two counts of second degree assault; other charges were acquitted.
- Sentences: 18 months for resisting arrest, plus 18 months each for two assaults, all consecutive, with three years’ supervised probation; assaults suspended.
- Post-trial, an unmarked jury note about self-defense and assault was found; trial judge had no recollection of note; note not discussed on record.
- Nicolas appealed; argued failure to merge assaults into resisting arrest and failure to disclose the jury note; Court of Special Appeals affirmed; Maryland Supreme Court granted certiorari.
- The Maryland Court of Appeals held: (i) the first question regarding the jury note was answered in the negative; (ii) the assault convictions should merge into the resisting arrest conviction under the required evidence test due to ambiguity in the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do jury notes trigger Rule 4-326(d) if no date/time is shown? | Nicolas argues note was received, and rule was triggered. | State contends no receipt proven; Rule not triggered. | No, note not proven received; Rule 4-326(d) not triggered. |
| Should second degree assault convictions merge into resisting arrest? | Nicolas contends assaults were the same acts as resisting arrest. | State argues assaults and resisting arrest are separate elements. | Yes; the assaults merge into resisting arrest under the required evidence test. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lancaster, 332 Md. 385 (1993) (merger when offenses based on same act under required evidence test)
- Nightingale v. State, 312 Md. 699 (1988) (ambiguous bases may be merged in merger analysis)
- Snowden v. State, 321 Md. 612 (1991) (ambiguous factual bases may require merger of offenses)
- Cooper v. State, 128 Md.App. 257 (1999) (merger under required evidence test when elements overlap)
- Grant v. State, 141 Md.App. 517 (2001) (merger analysis for assaults vs. resisting arrest; sequence considerations)
- Denicolis v. State, 378 Md. 646 (2003) (jury note handling and receipt considered in Rule 4-326(d) context)