Randall v. State
117 A.3d 91
| Md. Ct. Spec. App. | 2015Background
- Decedent Alma Lynch (Maryland resident) named niece Crystal Hayslett Randall and partner Clifton Terry as co-personal representatives of her Maryland probate estate; the residuary included real property in Gilbert, Arizona.
- Randall (Arizona resident and realtor) filed Maryland letters of administration and filed proof of authority in Arizona; she listed and sold the Arizona house in December 2010, depositing $90,960.30 into an account she controlled and withdrew most proceeds within nine days, distributing only small amounts to some beneficiaries.
- Terry (co-representative) learned of the sale only later, reported concerns to the Montgomery County State’s Attorney in February 2011, and an investigation followed; a grand jury indicted Randall (theft and embezzlement) July 21, 2011.
- Warrant was entered into NCIC and information was periodically checked; Randall was arrested in Arizona December 7, 2012, fought extradition, was returned to Maryland in March 2013, tried August 12–14, 2013, convicted on both counts, and sentenced.
- On appeal Randall challenged (1) violation of speedy-trial rights from indictment to trial delay, (2) Maryland territorial jurisdiction (arguing acts occurred in Arizona), and (3) admissibility of testimony by the Deputy Register of Wills as improper lay/expert/legal testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Randall) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Speedy-trial violation for ~25-month delay between indictment and trial | State failed to exercise reasonable diligence to locate and arrest Randall in Arizona; prejudice presumed from long delay | State made reasonably diligent efforts (NCIC entry, background checks, contacts with Arizona agencies); much delay due to out-of-state residence and extradition fight | No violation: delay triggered Barker analysis but State acted with reasonable diligence; balancing of Barker factors favors State |
| Territorial jurisdiction to prosecute theft/embezzlement when acts occurred in Arizona | No duty to account to Maryland for foreign real property/proceeds; therefore Maryland lacks territorial jurisdiction | Randall, appointed by Maryland, had a duty to account for proceeds to the Maryland estate; Wright duty-to-account theory supports Maryland jurisdiction | Maryland had territorial jurisdiction under Wright’s "duty to account" theory: duty to account was an essential element and jurisdictionally sufficient |
| Admissibility of Deputy Register of Wills (Hawkins) testimony about probate practices and requirement to bring proceeds into Maryland estate | Testimony constituted improper legal conclusions or expert opinion by lay witness and was prejudicial | Testimony described office practices and was relevant to jurisdiction; objections untimely or cured by court instruction | Admission of that testimony was error as improper expert lay-opinion but harmless beyond reasonable doubt because it was not probative of intent on the crimes and did not contribute to verdict |
Key Cases Cited
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (U.S. 1972) (established four-factor speedy-trial balancing test)
- Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647 (U.S. 1992) (delay may be excused if government acted with reasonable diligence; presumptive prejudice concept)
- Wright v. State, 339 Md. 399 (Md. 1995) (adopts "duty to account" theory to support territorial jurisdiction in theft/embezzlement cases)
- Urciolo v. State, 272 Md. 607 (Md. 1974) (discusses situs of duty to account for embezzlement in foreign-located matters)
- Butler v. State, 353 Md. 67 (Md. 1999) (territorial jurisdiction principles; crime must have an essential element within the forum)
- Glover v. State, 368 Md. 211 (Md. 2002) (de novo review framework for speedy-trial claims and Barker application)
- Ragland v. State, 385 Md. 706 (Md. 2005) (limits lay opinion where testimony rests on specialized knowledge; expert-notice requirements)
- Dorsey v. State, 276 Md. 638 (Md. 1976) (harmless-error standard in criminal cases)