Perez v. State, 21 A.3d 1048

Perez and Canela were convicted of murder and related offenses in Baltimore City; six jury notes were not disclosed to counsel during trial.
Md. Rule 4-326(d) requires prompt disclosure of jury communications to both sides and on the record; the trial judge did not disclose the six notes.
The Court of Special Appeals remanded for fact-finding; Judge Sweeney found six notes (6, 7, 14, 21, 23, 26) undisclosed.
The State argued the undisclosed notes were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; the petitioners argued the notes reflected substantive jury concerns affecting trial strategy.
The Maryland Court of Appeals granted certiorari to address whether the weakened harmless error standard applied by the intermediate court was appropriate and whether the errors were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Court of Special Appeals erred in applying a weakened harmless error test	Perez contends the appellate court erred by relaxing harmless-error review for undisclosed jury notes.	State argues the standard applied was proper and notes were harmlessly non-prejudicial.	Reversed; standard misapplied, and error not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
Whether the failure to disclose six jury notes was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt	Petitioners contend the notes contained substantive questions that could have altered defense strategy.	State contends the notes were answered by witnesses and did not prejudice the verdict.	Not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; reversal required.
Whether juror note 14 was moot and excused from harmless-error analysis	Note 14 showed concern about a juror's conduct; disclosure could have affected deliberations.	Delay was moot because juror 6 was removed for tardiness, creating independent ground to proceed.	Moot issue; no prejudice analysis required.

Dove v. State, 415 Md. 727 (Md. 2010) (establishes standard for evaluating harmless error in jury communications)
Dorsey v. State, 276 Md. 638 (Md. 1976) (harmless error standard for verdict-influencing errors)
Noble v. State, 293 Md. 549 (Md. 1982) (explains burden to show lack of prejudice beyond a reasonable doubt)
Denicolis v. State, 378 Md. 646 (Md. 2003) (non-disclosed jury communications must be shown not to influence the verdict)
Taylor v. State, 352 Md. 338 (Md. 1998) (input from counsel required when trial judge answers juror questions)
Allen v. State, 77 Md. App. 537 (Md. Ct. App. 1989) (requires that counsel be informed and have input before responding to jury communications)
Miles v. State, 365 Md. 488 (Md. 2001) (input opportunity for counsel regarding jury communications)