Smith v. State, 296 A.3d 1032

Background

Jonathan D. Smith was convicted in 2001 of first‑degree murder and burglary; new evidence and disclosures later revealed Brady violations by the State.
In 2020 this Court (Smith/Faulkner) held the trial court abused its discretion, granted Smith’s petition for writ of actual innocence, and remanded for a new trial because the State failed to disclose exculpatory evidence.
On remand Smith moved to dismiss alleging due process violations and double jeopardy; the circuit court found willful suppression but denied dismissal and ordered retrial.
Smith and the State then entered a conditional Alford plea (Md. Rule 4‑242(d)) preserving Smith’s right to appeal the denial of the motion to dismiss; the plea included an extensive proffer and the State admitted willful misconduct.
The Appellate Court affirmed; the Attorney General (on appeal) and the State in this Court agreed dismissal was the only appropriate remedy, but the Supreme Court of Maryland concluded it could not reliably assess irreparable prejudice or lesser alternatives because no retrial occurred and essential evidentiary questions remain.
The Supreme Court vacated the Appellate Court judgment and remanded with instructions that the circuit court vacate its denial of the motion to dismiss and permit Smith to withdraw his conditional plea, restoring the pre‑plea posture and the prior remand for retrial unless the State elects not to prosecute.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Smith)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether willful Brady violations require dismissal of the charges (due process)	Two‑decade pattern of intentional suppression caused irreparable prejudice; only dismissal will vindicate due process	Initially defended retrial as the normal Brady remedy; later conceded in this Court that dismissal is appropriate	Court found willful misconduct satisfied but declined to decide whether dismissal required because, with the conditional plea and no retrial, it could not meaningfully assess irreparable prejudice or availability of lesser remedies; remanded to permit plea withdrawal and reinstate retrial posture
Whether double jeopardy bars retrial	Retrial is barred because State’s bad‑faith, long‑running misconduct made a fair retrial impossible	Argued double jeopardy did not apply; State opposed review on that issue	Court did not grant certiorari on double jeopardy and did not decide the question
Proper remedy framework for extreme prosecutorial misconduct	Dismissal warranted when misconduct is willful, prejudice is irreparable, and no less drastic remedy exists	Agreed dismissal may be appropriate in extreme cases but treated retrial and curative measures as presumptively adequate	Court adopted the three‑part standard (willful misconduct; irreparable prejudice; no feasible lesser remedy), held first factor met but could not assess the latter two on this record
Whether appellate review of denial of dismissal can be resolved without a retrial because of the conditional plea	The preserved appeal should be decided on the existing record showing egregious misconduct	Court and State noted retrial was the ordinary remedy; later State agreed dismissal appropriate	Court declined to decide the preserved appeal on the existing record because the conditional plea prevented a retrial and made assessment of what would have happened at retrial speculative; vacated lower judgments and allowed withdrawal of the plea to restore the retrial posture

Key Cases Cited

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (establishes prosecutor’s duty to disclose exculpatory evidence)
North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (recognizes Alford plea—plea with protestation of innocence)
Smith v. State (Faulkner v. State; Smith v. State), 468 Md. 418 (Maryland 2020) (this Court ordered a new trial on actual‑innocence/Brady grounds)
Williams v. State, 416 Md. 670 (Maryland 2010) (discusses remedies for Brady violations and notes dismissal as extreme remedy)
United States v. Pasha, 797 F.3d 1122 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (articulates three‑part approach to Brady remedy—new trial, curative measures, or dismissal if prejudice is incurable)
Gov’t of Virgin Islands v. Fahie, 419 F.3d 249 (3d Cir. 2005) (dismissal for Brady violations is rare; courts require willfulness and incurable prejudice)
United States v. Fitzgerald, 615 F. Supp. 2d 1156 (S.D. Cal. 2009) (dismissal where government suppressed impeachment recordings and key witness died, making retrial unfair)
Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Cassilly, 476 Md. 309 (Maryland 2021) (prosecutorial misconduct can warrant disciplinary sanctions such as disbarment)