State v. Harris
428 Md. 700
| Md. | 2012Background
- Harris was convicted by jury of second-degree depraved-heart murder in Maryland.
- Court of Special Appeals reversed, holding Rule 4-326(d) required disclosure of a juror-secretary communication and remanded for a new trial.
- During voir dire, juror stated concerns about his grandmother’s illness; later, the grandmother died.
- Juror’s father informed the judge’s secretary of the death; secretary subsequently spoke to the juror without counsel present.
- Juror later moved to be excused; alternates were not initially used, and deliberations began with the original jury.
- Court refused mistrial; verdict delivered with acquittal on specific-intent murder and conviction on depraved-heart murder; Harris sought new trial and CSPA again reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 4-326(d) required disclosure | Harris: must disclose any juror-related communication. | State: only juror-originating communications pertain; court communications are not required to be disclosed. | Yes; disclosure required and error prejudicial. |
| Whether failure to disclose was prejudicial | Harris: non-disclosure prejudiced defense by depriving input and timing options. | State: informational only; no prejudice shown. | Prejudicial; reversal warranted. |
| Whether the communication pertained to the action | Harris: inquiry about juror’s ability to continue deliberating pertained to the action. | State: it was an administrative, non-actionable matter. | Communication pertained to the action; within Rule 4-326(d). |
Key Cases Cited
- Stewart v. State, 334 Md. 213 (Md. 1994) (ex parte juror-judge communications violate Rule 4-326(d) and prejudice the defense)
- Black v. State, 426 Md. 328 (Md. 2012) (extends Rule 4-326(d) to court personnel; receipt of jury communications triggers duties)
- Winder v. State, 362 Md. 275 (Md. 2001) (mandatory disclosure when judge or court personnel receive jury communications)
- Graham v. State, 325 Md. 398 (Md. 1992) (personal communications can still pertain to action if they affect deliberation)
- Taylor v. State, 352 Md. 338 (Md. 1998) (prejudice standard after Rule 4-326(d) disclosure)