In re MARCUS J.
No. 107, Sept. Term, 2007
Court of Appeals of Maryland
June 17, 2008
950 A.2d 787
221
Mary Ann Ince, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Douglas F. Gansler, Atty. Gen.), on brief, for petitioner.
Peter F. Rose, General Counsel (Nancy S. Forster, Public Defender), on brief, for respondent.
Argued before BELL, C.J., *RAKER, HARRELL, BATTAGLIA, GREENE, ELDRIDGE (Retired, Specially Assigned) and CATHELL (Retired, Specially Assigned), JJ.
BATTAGLIA, J.
In the present case, Marcus J. excepted to a master‘s finding that he was in possession of a handgun, and thus a delinquent child, but his exceptions were dismissed by a Circuit Court Judge for Baltimore City. The Court of Special Appeals vacated the judgment of the Circuit Court and held that Marcus J. was entitled to a de novo hearing on all findings, conclusions and recommendations of the master. We granted certiorari to answer the following question:
Did the Court of Special Appeals incorrectly overturn the juvenile court‘s dismissal of Marcus J.‘s exceptions to the juvenile master‘s recommendations in his case, where the juvenile court held that Marcus J. failed to comply with the specificity requirements of
Rule 11-111 andSection 3-807(c) of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article and the juvenile court‘s policy implementing those provisions?1
I. Introduction
At about 10:30 p.m. on August 24, 2006, in Baltimore City, fourteen year-old Marcus J. was approached by officers in a patrol car who asked him to “come here“; Marcus J. began to run and threw something away as he was running. The police discovered a gun in the yard nearby, which Marcus J. denied was his.
He was subsequently charged as a juvenile with one count of carrying a handgun, one count of concealing a dangerous or deadly weapon,2 and one count of possession of a firearm while under the age of 21. On the day of the adjudicatory hearing before a master, the State requested a postponement in order to obtain an operability report on the handgun, as well as a fingerprint analysis,3 both of which were not yet available. The postponement was denied. As a result, the State called Officer Charles Thompson who testified, over a defense objection, regarding whether the handgun was operational:
[STATE‘S ATTORNEY]: Officer Thompson, I‘m going to ask you, if you would, to pick up the weapon and the weapon has a barrel?
[OFFICER]: Yes.
[STATE‘S ATTORNEY]: And it has been rendered safe by you and double-checked by the sheriff?
[OFFICER]: That‘s correct.
[STATE‘S ATTORNEY]: I‘m going to ask you if you would please take a look at the barrel and describe the condition of the barrel.
[MARCUS J.‘S ATTORNEY]: Objection.
[MASTER]: What do you mean “describe the condition“?
[STATE‘S ATTORNEY]: Describe what you see when you look in the barrel.
[MASTER]: Okay. That‘s different. Describe what you see when you look in the barrel.
*
*
*
[STATE‘S ATTORNEY]: I‘m asking you, today, if you would look down the barrel and tell me what you see.
[OFFICER]: Okay. I see my thumbnail and I also see [b]ands and grooves in the barrel.
[STATE‘S ATTORNEY]: Do you see any obstructions in the barrel?
[OFFICER]: No, I do not.
[STATE‘S ATTORNEY]: I‘m going to ask you to put your finger on the trigger of the weapon and pull that back.
[OFFICER]: (Witness complied.)
[STATE‘S ATTORNEY]: Does it go back?
[OFFICER]: Yes, it does. [STATE‘S ATTORNEY]: Is there a way that you can render it to go forward?
[OFFICER]: Yes, by depressing the trigger.
[MARCUS J.‘S ATTORNEY]: I‘m going to object, Your Honor, to these lines of questions. This officer is not certified to, again, do any type of operability test. I don‘t believe he‘s been classified as an expert to do any type [of] tests on the operability of handguns at this point.
The master made a finding of facts sustained,4 finding specifically that “[t]he testimony of witnesses supported the sustained counts,” and that “[c]onflicting testimony concerning the sustained counts was resolved in favor of the witness[ ] for the State.” A disposition hearing5 was held in November of 2006, after which the master recommended that Marcus J. be found to be “a delinquent child” and further recommended that he be placed on probation for an indefinite period, subject to various conditions, including substance abuse outpatient counseling, mandatory school attendance, community service and participation in a mentor program.
Within five days, Marcus J. filed a Notice of Exception and Request for Hearing, in which he stated:
Pursuant to Maryland Code, Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, section 3-815(c) and Rule 11-111(c) of the Maryland Rules of Procedure, please be advised that the Respondent excepts to the findings and proposed orders of [the master], on the 3rd day November, 2006, in the above-captioned petition(s) and requests that the matter be set for a hearing de novo, before the Judge of this Honorable Court and in support of the exception, notes these errors:
Respondents [sic] counsel is excepting to [the master‘s] findings at the adjudicatory hearing held on 10/6/06 and the disposition hearing on 11/3/06. [The master] erred in her admission of an non experts [sic] testimony on the operability of a handgun over Respondents [sic] council [sic] objection. Moreover, [the master] erred in her facts and findings in the adjudicatory and disposition hearing.
During the exceptions hearing, Marcus J.‘s attorney stated, in response to the Judge‘s statement that she did not comply with the exceptions policy of the Baltimore City Circuit Court when exercising its juvenile jurisdiction,6 that she “did file the
Your Honor, I filed my exceptions, the law i[s] very clear that my Client is allowed an exception de novo hearing based on filing ( ) the exceptions with the Clerk‘s office, which was properly done within the five days. That is the law. The law that my Client is entitled to an exception de novo, as long as I file the exception within five days. That is what the law states.
The Judge, nonetheless, dismissed Marcus J.‘s exceptions.
Marcus J. appealed to the Court of Special Appeals, in which he posed the single question of whether the Circuit Court erred in dismissing his exceptions. In a reported opinion, the intermediate appellate court vacated the judgment of the Circuit Court and remanded the case for a hearing “as to all matters decided by the master.” In re Marcus J., 175 Md.App. 703, 716, 931 A.2d 1146, 1154 (2007). The court iterated that, “[b]ecause a juvenile is, in fact, entitled to elect a de novo hearing on exceptions, and is entitled to file exceptions to ‘all of the master‘s findings, conclusions, and recommendations,’ we view the exceptions filed by Marcus as sufficiently specific to communicate his election to avail himself of that right,” and that “the circuit court erred in basing its dismissal of the exceptions on the juvenile‘s alleged failure to comply with a local ‘exception policy’ that—as applied in this case—purportedly imposed requirements beyond those set forth in Rule 11-111 and CJP § 3-807(c).” Id. at 712, 715-16, 931 A.2d at 1151-52, 1154.
The State petitioned for certiorari, which we granted. In re Marcus J., 402 Md. 355, 936 A.2d 852 (2007). We shall hold that, under
II. Discussion
The State acknowledges to the extent Marcus J. specifically excepted to the police officer‘s non-expert testimony on the operability of the handgun, that an exceptions hearing as to that exception would be appropriate. The State, nonetheless, argues that the Court of Special Appeals erred in concluding that Marcus J. had a right to a de novo hearing on all of the masters findings, conclusions and recommendations under
In response to the State‘s argument, Marcus J. contends that the intermediate appellate court was correct in concluding that Marcus J. complied with the statute and Rule governing the filing of exceptions and the request for a de novo hearing. Marcus J. argues that he was entitled to have his case heard before a qualified circuit court judge and that
We utilize masters in many jurisdictions in various types of proceedings, such as domestic relations cases, general civil matters and, most importantly for the present case, in juvenile causes, including shelter care and delinquency. In State v. Wiegmann, 350 Md. 585, 714 A.2d 841 (1998), we had occasion to explore the role of masters:
A master is not a judicial officer, and the Maryland Constitution does not vest a master with any judicial powers. In re Anderson, 272 Md. 85, 106, 321 A.2d 516 (1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 1000, 95 S.Ct. 2399, 44 L.Ed.2d 667 (1975); see also Swisher v. Brady, 438 U.S. 204, 209, 98 S.Ct. 2699, 2703, 57 L.Ed.2d 705 (1978) (“masters [in Maryland] are entrusted with none of the judicial power of the State“); Lemley v. Lemley, 102 Md.App. 266, 277, 649 A.2d 1119 (1994) (“[T]he master is not a judge and is not vested with any part of the State‘s judicial power.“); Sensabaugh v. Gorday, 90 Md.App. 379, 390, 600 A.2d 1204 (1992) (“Once a master has recommended a contempt proceeding it is necessary for the court to issue the show cause order because the master does not have the power to issue such orders.“). “Simply put, the Master is a ministerial and not a judicial officer.” Levitt v. Levitt, 79 Md.App. 394, 399, 556 A.2d 1162, cert. denied, 316 Md. 549, 560 A.2d 1118 (1989). In Nnoli v. Nnoli, 101 Md.App. 243, 646 A.2d 1021 (1994), [the Court of Special Appeals] observed that a master has historically been an
“adviser of the court as to matters of jurisdiction, parties, pleading, proof and in other respects where he may be of assistance to the court.... The duties of the master are of an advisory character only. He decides nothing, but merely reports to the court the result of his examination of the proceedings, with a suggestion as to the propriety of the court passing a decree.”
Id. at 261 n. 5, 646 A.2d 1021 (quoting Edgar G. Miller, Jr. Equity Procedure § 556, at 654-55 (1897)). Thus, a judge “may never delegate away a part of the decision making function to a master—a non-judicial officer.” Wenger v. Wenger, 42 Md.App. 596, 602, 402 A.2d 94 (1979). Consequently, even when a judge defers to a master‘s fact-finding, the judge does not defer to the master‘s recommendation as to the appropriate course of action. Id. at 606, 402 A.2d 94; see also Ellis v. Ellis, 19 Md.App. 361, 365, 311 A.2d 428 (1973).
A master is, however, an officer of the court, appointed by the circuit court; that court has constitutional authority to make such appointments.
Id. at 593-595, 714 A.2d at 845.7
rizing the General Assembly to “establish a Juvenile Court for any other incorporated city or town or any county of the State.”
*
*
*
We surmise that Chapter 818 of the Acts of 1943 was passed as a result of the recommendation of that Commission that “[i]n addition to the jurisdiction [then] possessed and exercised by the Circuit Court of Baltimore City, said Court [should] have jurisdiction in juvenile causes as [t]hereinafter defined.” That act provided for the appointment by the Supreme Bench of Baltimore City, upon recommendation of the judge assigned to exercise the jurisdiction in juvenile causes, of “a suitable person to act as Master.” The master was required at the conclusion of a hearing to “transmit to the Judge all papers relating to the case, together with his findings and recommendations in writing,” with the further proviso that if no hearing were requested relative to those findings and recommendations they should, “when confirmed by an order of the Judge, ... become the judgment of the court.”
*
*
*
The Legislative Council of Maryland appointed a subcommittee on juvenile causes in 1968. Its report recommended the revisions in the juvenile law which formed the basis for Chapter 432 of the Acts of 1969. Most of Code (1957, 1973 Repl.Vol.) Art. 26, §§ 51-71, under which these cases arose, was enacted by that
chapter.
which current Rule 11-1119 was derived, which, for the first time, enabled the filing of “written exceptions to the master‘s findings or recommendations or any part thereof,” required the circuit court judge to “hear the entire matter or such specific matters as set forth in the exceptions de novo” and mandated that the judge promptly confirm, modify or remand the findings and recommendations of the master. Rule 11-111(c) provides for the filing of exceptions10 to a master‘s
findings, conclusions and recommendations; it requires, however, that exceptions “specify those items to which the party excepts, and whether the hearing is to be de novo or on the record.”
The Legislature, in 1975, after having considered whether to prohibit the use of masters, enacted a provision permitting the filing of exceptions “to any or all of the master‘s findings, conclusions, and recommendations,” provided the requesting party “specify those items to which [the party] objects.” See 1975 Maryland Laws, Chapter 554. The statute, which is now codified at
allows the filing party
We now turn to whether Marcus J.‘s exceptions meet the specificity requirement of the statute and Rule. Both
Marcus J. also filed additional exceptions, stating he was “excepting to [the master‘s] findings at the adjudicatory hearing held on 10/6/06 and the disposition hearing on 11/3/06,” and that “[m]oreover, [the master] erred in her facts and findings in the adjudicatory and disposition hearing.” Although the State argues that these exceptions are not specific,
they are explicit, reflecting the mandate of
The issue, however, that could arise on remand and has consumed much of the
De novo in the present case, albeit different contextually, must enable the Circuit Court Judge to receive evidence and
make determinations of facts as though no prior proceeding had occurred, especially because a master is not recognized as a judge, but a ministerial actor making recommendations to an Article IV judge.14 See Harryman v. State, 359 Md. 492, 505-06, 754 A.2d 1018, 1025-26 (2000) (describing a master as a “ministerial officer’ who advises and assists a judge“); Wiegmann, 350 Md. at 593, 714 A.2d at 845 (“A master is not a judicial officer, and the Maryland Constitution does not vest a master with any judicial powers.“); In re Dewayne H., 290 Md. 401, 402 n. 1, 430 A.2d 76, 77 n. 1 (1981).
Because of this, we have held that a master‘s hearing in a juvenile matter does not place the juvenile in jeopardy; in Anderson, 272 Md. at 106, 321 A.2d at 527, we stated:
We have cited cases and authorities to the effect that a master is a ministerial officer, and not a judicial officer. We have called attention to the fact that under the Maryland Constitution a master is entrusted with no part of the
judicial power of this State, although the earlier magistrate for juvenile causes was entrusted with such power as a justice of the peace. We have pointed out that, under the Maryland Rules applicable to juvenile cases and under the procedure generally where masters are involved, a master hears evidence and then reports his findings of fact and his recommendations to the chancellor. We have also pointed out that a master‘s findings do not become binding until approved by a judge of the court to which he reports.
Accordingly, we conclude that a hearing before a master is not such a hearing as places a juvenile in jeopardy. Therefore, double jeopardy cannot arise if the matter is heard de novo before the chancellor.
(emphasis added). See also Swisher v. Brady, 438 U.S. 204, 215, 98 S.Ct. 2699, 2706, 57 L.Ed.2d 705, 715 (1978) (iterating that the Maryland Rule allowing the State to file exceptions to a master‘s proposals does not require a juvenile to stand trial twice because under the master system, the “accused juvenile is subjected to a single proceeding which begins with a master‘s hearing and culminates with an adjudication by a judge“).
Both Anderson and Swisher involved State requests for hearings on exceptions. In Anderson, we considered whether the State could request a de novo hearing on exceptions under Rule 908, which enabled the State to request a de novo hearing; we concluded that the State could request that hearing without placing the juvenile in jeopardy. Anderson, 272 Md. at 106, 321 A.2d at 527. This ruling precipitated nine juveniles filing for habeas corpus relief in Swisher, arguing that double jeopardy was implicated when the State took exceptions to masters’ findings that were favorable to them. Under Rule 911, however, which became applicable at the time of Swisher, the State was no longer able to request a hearing de novo. In addressing the issue of whether the Rule enabling the State even to request a hearing on the record violated double jeopardy, the Supreme Court concluded that the juveniles were not placed in jeopardy, because the master‘s hearing is part of a single proceeding that is ultimately concluded by the adjudication of a circuit court judge. Swisher, 438 U.S. at 215, 98 S.Ct. at 2706, 57 L.Ed.2d at 715. Concomitantly, because the adjudication before a circuit court judge is the gravamen of the process, a juvenile must be entitled to elect to have a judge hear evidence, make findings and apply the law to the facts of the case, as though no proceeding had occurred, should the juvenile request a de novo hearing, after submitting appropriate exceptions. Under the present case, therefore, wherein Marcus J. took exception to all matters decided by the master and unequivocally stated that he “requests that the matter be set for a hearing de novo,” he was entitled to such a hearing.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS AFFIRMED. COSTS IN THIS COURT AND IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS TO BE PAID BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE.
HARRELL and RAKER, JJ., Concur.
Concurring opinion by HARRELL, J., which RAKER, J., Joins.
On the record before us, I join the Majority opinion and judgment; however, had the Master‘s written report issued as a result of the 5 October 2006 adjudicatory hearing been other than a brief compilation of sweeping generalizations, I well may have joined the judgment only as to Marcus J.‘s entitlement to a de novo hearing before a Circuit Court judge on the issue of the “admission of a non-expert‘s
In the present case, the Master‘s amended Order of 6 October 2006, arising from the adjudicatory hearing, stated, in relevant part:
As a result of the Adjudicatory hearing in the above case(s), the Master recommends that the Court find:
The following facts sustained:
Name Cmp Cnt Charge description Marcus J[.] 7 1 Handgun-Possession Marcus J[.] 7 2 Deadly weapon-concealed Marcus J[.] 7 3 Firearm-regulated-minor The following facts merged:
Name Comp Cnt Charge description Marcus [J.] 7 1 Handgun-Possession
In support of the above findings, the following evidence was accepted:
The testimony of witnesses supported the sustained counts.
Conflicting testimony concerning the sustained counts was resolved in favor of the witnesses for the State.
Parties stipulated that Respondent‘s fingerprints were not found on the revolver.
It is hereby ordered that Maryland Department of Juvenile Services is directed to provide care and custody for the child in detention eligible for evening reporting center, pending hearing on above entitled cause and for a period not to exceed the next hearing date.
The Court orders that the following agencies perform the following actions regarding Marcus J[.] by the next court session:
the Maryland Department of Juvenile Services shall submit an Investigation Report to the Court
The following person(s) appeared for the hearing:
Marcus J[.]
Carolyn Bellamy (Grandmother)
Sondra M. Douglas (Defense attorney for the child)
Janet Hankin (Supervising Attorney)
Charles A. Thompson (Police officer)
The next court action will be at a(n) Disposition hearing on 11/3/2006 at 1:00 PM in Pt 3/H-10. All persons listed as present at today‘s hearing have been given notice of the next court action.
The exceptions filed by Marcus J. were at least as specific as the Master‘s findings and conclusions, giving the Master‘s findings and conclusions the treatment they deserved. He should not be penalized for filing exceptions that largely were equally as unilluminating as the Master‘s findings and conclusions. A de novo hearing before a Circuit Court judge is necessary in order to understand the bases for any action on the charges in this case.
Had the Master‘s “supporting” findings been more specific, however, I likely would have concluded that, other than as to the challenge to the non-expert opinion regarding the operability of the handgun, Marcus J.‘s exceptions, had they been filed “as is” in this case, would have been insufficiently specific according to the requirements of the Rule and the statute. To conclude otherwise puts the lie to the requirement that exceptions “shall specify those items [in the Master‘s written report] to which the party excepts.” Maintaining a proper tension between judicial efficiency and economy on one hand, and a juvenile‘s rights on the other, would dictate such a result.
Despite the Majority opinion‘s reiteration of the limited role of the master in
Judge RAKER has authorized me to state that she joins in this concurring opinion.