276 A.3d 619
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2022Background
- Richard Tallant was convicted of second-degree sexual offense; sentenced to ten years (seven years to serve) and probation. Post-trial relief sought included a Supplemental Motion for New Trial based on newly discovered evidence (Brady theory and Md. Rule 4-331(c)).
- The Supplemental Motion alleged prosecutors suppressed parts of an investigator’s activity summary and other discovery (rumors, interviews, investigative notes) that could support a new-trial claim.
- The State filed a two-page Motion to Strike and Motion to Seal the Supplemental Motion and its exhibits; the circuit court granted both orders on June 30, 2020 without a hearing or written findings.
- The circuit court’s order struck (expunged) the Supplemental Motion from the record rather than denying it on the merits; the court provided no explanation addressing the new-evidence claim.
- The Court of Special Appeals held the circuit court abused its discretion in granting the motion to strike (mootness argument improper because the supplemental motion raised distinct Rule 4-331(c) grounds) and in sealing (court failed to follow former Md. Rule 16-912: no adversary hearing, no findings, not narrowly tailored). Both orders were reversed/vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings; sealed materials remain sealed pending remand.
- Several other issues (closure of a remote November 6 proceeding and request for a different trial judge) were not decided because they were inadequately briefed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Tallant) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Was granting the State’s Motion to Strike an abuse of discretion? | The Supplemental Motion raised new, distinct Rule 4-331(c) grounds (newly discovered evidence); striking it as moot was improper. | Strike was proper because the original Rule 4-331(a) new-trial motion had been denied, so supplement was moot. | Reversed: strike was an abuse of discretion because the supplement alleged different grounds cognizable under Rule 4-331(c) and was not moot. |
| 2. Was granting the State’s Motion to Seal an abuse of discretion under former Rule 16-912? | Sealing without a full adversary hearing, factual findings, or a narrowly tailored order violated former Rule 16-912. | The sealing was at most a temporary measure and could be remedied by limited remand to add findings. | Vacated: sealing order violated former Rule 16-912 (no hearing, no findings, not narrowly tailored); remand required for full adversary hearing and requisite findings; materials remain sealed pending remand. |
| 3. Did the court’s June 30 order operate as a denial on the merits? | Tallant treated the order as a denial and challenged merits (e.g., Brady disclosure). | State treated the order as a denial as well. | Court of Special Appeals: order unambiguously struck the filings (not a merits denial); issues premised on a merits denial were recast. |
| 4. Were courtroom closure and motion for a new judge erroneous? | Tallant contended the November 6 remote proceeding was improperly closed and later asked for a different judge. | State noted briefing deficiencies and sought rejection of those claims. | Not reached: both issues were inadequately briefed, so the court declined to decide them. |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. Mandel, 402 Md. 109 (2007) (court orders construed like written instruments; plain language controls)
- Campbell v. State, 373 Md. 637 (2003) (a supplement alleging different grounds may be treated as a separate Rule 4-331 motion)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution’s duty to disclose exculpatory evidence)
- Rosales v. State, 463 Md. 552 (2019) (Md. Rule 8-202(a) is a claim-processing rule, not jurisdictional)
- Baltimore Sun Co. v. Colbert, 323 Md. 290 (1991) (court must identify interest to be protected and articulate findings when sealing records)
- Garg v. Garg, 393 Md. 225 (2006) (abuse-of-discretion standard: trial court must exercise sound discretion and explain its reasoning)