Winters v. State
76 A.3d 986
Md.2013Background
- Defendant David Winters charged with first-degree murder; pleaded not guilty and not criminally responsible (NCR); elected a bench trial after an on-the-record waiver colloquy.
- During the colloquy the trial judge told Winters a jury would have to unanimously find guilt or NCR "beyond a reasonable doubt."
- Maryland law places the burden on defendant to prove NCR by a preponderance of the evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt.
- At bench trial the judge found NCR evidence in equipoise and convicted Winters of first-degree murder; he was sentenced to life.
- Court of Special Appeals affirmed; Maryland Court of Appeals granted certiorari solely on the jury-waiver validity issue.
- Court of Appeals held the judge’s erroneous advisement may have made a jury trial less attractive and therefore the waiver was not knowingly made; reversed and remanded for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Winters’ waiver of the jury trial knowing and voluntary when the trial judge misstated the burden for proving NCR during the waiver colloquy? | Winters: The judge misadvised that NCR must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt and failed to mention the possibility of acquittal; the error may have influenced his waiver. | State: No clear reliance shown; judge was not required to explain NCR standard during waiver; defendant was represented so misstatements were harmless. | The waiver was not knowing: the judge’s erroneous statement that NCR required proof beyond a reasonable doubt could have made a jury trial appear less favorable and may have influenced the decision to waive; reverse and remand for new trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Marsh, 337 Md. 528, 654 A.2d 1318 (1995) (trial court may accept jury-waiver in NCR case without specific advice about the NCR defense)
- Valonis v. State, 431 Md. 551, 66 A.3d 661 (2013) (Rule 4-246 requires on-the-record examination to ensure jury-waiver is knowing and voluntary)
- Morales v. State, 325 Md. 330, 600 A.2d 851 (1992) (when a judge elects to give extra advice about a constitutional right, it must be correct; misleading advice can render a waiver invalid)
- Tibbs v. State, 323 Md. 28, 590 A.2d 550 (1991) (failure to show a knowing and voluntary jury-waiver requires reversal)
- Martinez v. State, 309 Md. 124, 522 A.2d 950 (1987) (trial court bears responsibility to ensure waiver is knowing)
- Boulden v. State, 414 Md. 284, 995 A.2d 268 (2010) (waiver validity judged by intentional relinquishment of a known right)