State v. Newton
146 A.3d 1204
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2016Background
- In 2004 Donta Newton was tried twice for shooting Jerrell Patillo; the first trial ended in mistrial, the second resulted in convictions for attempted first‑degree murder and related firearm offenses and a life sentence.
- At the end of the second trial the court, with the parties’ agreement, sent the remaining alternate juror into the jury room with instructions not to participate; the jury (including the alternate physically present) returned unanimous guilty verdicts after ~2 hours 20 minutes.
- During rebuttal closing the prosecutor argued that other witnesses would not come forward because of fear of retaliation, drawing on a detective’s testimony that some witnesses had been unwilling to cooperate.
- Newton filed a post‑conviction petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel for failing to object to (1) the prosecutor’s rebuttal remarks about witness retaliation and (2) the presence of the alternate juror during deliberations; he also alleged ineffective appellate counsel for failing to raise the alternate‑juror issue on direct appeal.
- The post‑conviction court granted a new trial on both ineffective‑assistance grounds and found appellate counsel ineffective for not raising the alternate issue; the State appealed.
- The Court of Special Appeals reversed: it held counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to the rebuttal argument and that trial counsel’s tactical acquiescence to the alternate’s presence was not deficient; it also held appellate counsel was not ineffective in failing to raise a waived claim.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Newton's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Was trial counsel ineffective for failing to object to prosecutor’s rebuttal about witnesses’ fear of retaliation? | Remarks were proper response to defense opening the door and were supported by detective testimony; any error was minor and not prejudicial. | Remarks were inadmissible and inflammatory because there was no evidence linking Newton to threats. | Court: Not ineffective — rebuttal was a fair response to defense and supported by testimony. |
| 2) Was trial counsel ineffective for agreeing to permit the non‑deliberating alternate to be present during deliberations? | Counsel made a reasonable tactical decision to avoid another mistrial; strategic choices receive strong deference under Strickland. | Presence of an alternate in the jury room is legal error per Stokes; counsel’s misunderstanding of law is not a valid strategy. | Court: Not ineffective — counsel’s tactical choice was reasonable and not per se deficient. |
| 3) Was appellate counsel ineffective for failing to raise the alternate‑juror claim on direct appeal? | The claim was waived because defense counsel consented at trial, so plain‑error review was unlikely; omitting it was not deficient. | Appellate counsel should have raised an error of constitutional magnitude (alternate present during deliberations). | Court: Not ineffective — the issue was likely waived and had low appellate viability, so omission was reasonable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑part test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- Stokes v. State, 379 Md. 618 (2004) (presence of alternate juror during deliberations creates presumption of prejudice when objected to)
- United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (1993) (distinction between preserved error and plain error review for unobjected‑to trial errors)
- Hayes v. State, 355 Md. 615 (1999) (discussing prejudice from alternate juror presence)
- Ramirez v. State, 178 Md. App. 257 (2008) (failure to object to alternate’s presence waives claim on appeal)
- London v. State, 580 S.E.2d 686 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003) (defense counsel’s consent to alternate witnessing deliberations can waive presumed prejudice; strategic decisions typically not deficient)