Pair v. State
202 Md. App. 617
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2011Background
- Pair, convicted in Baltimore County of first-degree assault, robbery, false imprisonment, and unlawful taking of a motor vehicle with a fiancé victim; sentences were 25, 10, 5, and 5 years (motor vehicle theft concurrent with robbery).
- On appeal, Pair challenged merger of multiple convictions and argued Rule 4-345(a) warranted corrective action to merge sentences.
- This Court earlier merged the unlawful taking into robbery in a separate case; that prior merger has no bearing on the present Case’s broader merger questions.
- Judge Levitz denied Part of the merger issues; Pair reasserted three additional merger arguments before the appellate court.
- The court assumed Rule 4-345(a) coverage for the first two merger issues but found fundamental fairness merger not subject to Rule 4-345(a)’s dispensation, and ultimately held merger was not required under double jeopardy or the rule of lenity; evidence strongly indicated the first-degree assault was the flagship offense, not incidental to robbery or false imprisonment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Double jeopardy merger of first-degree assault and robbery | Pair contends assault merges into robbery under Blockburger. | State argues distinct elements justify no merger. | No merger required under the required-evidence test. |
| Double jeopardy merger of first-degree assault and false imprisonment | Pair contends assault merges into false imprisonment. | State contends distinct offenses avoid merger. | No merger required under Blockburger test. |
| Rule of lenity and merger | Pair invokes lenity to require merging robbery and assault/false imprisonment. | State asserts lenity applies only to statutory offenses, not common-law crimes here. | Lenity does not mandate merger for these common-law offenses. |
| Fundamental fairness merger under Rule 4-345(a) | Pair seeks fundamental fairness merger as third basis. | State none; fundamental fairness not addressable by Rule 4-345(a). | Court declines to apply fundamental-fairness merger under Rule 4-345(a); affirms denial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Monoker v. State, 321 Md. 214 (1990) (treated as a basis for fundamental fairness not required by double jeopardy or lenity.)
- Brooks v. State, 284 Md. 416 (1979) (set forth required evidence vs. actual evidence tests for merger.)
- Newton v. State, 280 Md. 260 (1977) (required evidence test as standard for merger in Maryland.)
- White v. State, 318 Md. 740 (1990) (rule of lenity as statutory construction principle; limited applicability to statutory offenses.)
- Dillsworth v. State, 308 Md. 354 (1987) (lenity applies where one offense is statutory and the other derivative; not for two common-law offenses.)
- Johnson v. State, 56 Md.App. 205 (1983) (fundamental fairness inquiry under Johnson framework; separation from two statutes years apart.)
- Williams v. State, 323 Md. 312 (1991) (addressed fairness of multiple punishments in specific contexts.)
- Whack v. State, 288 Md. 137 (1980) (robbery as common-law offense; statutory penalties do not alter its core.)
- Watts v. State, 3 Md.App. 454 (1968) (actual evidence test for merger, later overruled by Newton/Brooks framework.)
- Marquardt v. State, 164 Md.App. 95 (2005) (fundamental fairness considered where clearly incidental to another offense.)
- Britton v. State, 201 Md.App. 589 (2011) (assault may or may not merge depending on factual context.)