SMITH v. STATE OF MARYLAND
No. 22, September Term, 1975
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Decided January 7, 1976.
276 Md. 521
Morgan L. Amaimo for appellant.
Arrie W. Davis, Assistant Attorney General, with whom were Francis B. Burch, Attorney General, and Clarence W. Sharp, Assistant Attorney General, on the brief, for appellee.
DIGGES, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. O‘DONNELL, J., concurs in the result and filed a concurring opinion at page 535 infra.
The issue presented for our consideration is whether the petitioner in this case was denied his rights to a speedy trial as guaranteed by the
The petitioner, Ramarro Lee Smith, in a seven-count indictment returned by the grand jury in Montgomery County on October 4, 1972, was charged with rape and related offenses. More than 15 months later, on January 23, 1974, trial commenced in the circuit court of that county before Judge Joseph M. Mathias and a jury. Upon conclusion of the trial on January 28, 1974, Smith was found guilty on five of the counts, including the one charging rape. Sentencing took place on April 16, 1974, and nine days later the petitioner noted a timely appeal to the Court of Special Appeals.1 In an unreported decision, Smith v. State, decided December 27, 1974, that court affirmed the conviction,
Since, when contemplating this issue, time in relation to events is such a significant consideration, we shall chronicle in detail the incidents which preceded the petitioner‘s conviction. The crimes with which Smith was charged allegedly occurred on September 15, 1972. He was arrested and incarcerated the following day, and indicted shortly thereafter, on October 4. Two days later, after entering a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity, Smith was committed by court order to Clifton T. Perkins State Hospital for examination. The hospital‘s report, received by Judge Mathias on December 12, 1972, concluded that the petitioner was then competent to stand trial and that he was sane when the crimes allegedly were committed. Although Smith was returned on the 11th of December to the Montgomery County Detention Center to await trial, for no apparent reason his trial was not scheduled to begin until six months later, on June 11, 1973.
During this six-month period the State made no positive efforts to keep itself posted as to the whereabouts of the prosecutrix, Barbara Rae Linn. Thus it was not until June 7, 1973, that the Deputy State‘s Attorney discovered this complaining witness was no longer in the jurisdiction and consequently the summons which had been issued for her on May 30 could not be served. Realizing that Mrs. Linn‘s testimony was crucial to the State‘s case, he telephoned Police Lieutenant Skaife, one of the investigating officers, and requested that the officer immediately attempt to locate the missing witness. Having not heard from the lieutenant by the late afternoon of Friday, the 8th of June, the Deputy State‘s Attorney advised Circuit Court Judge Shure that he would be unable to proceed with the trial then scheduled to begin on the ensuing Monday morning. An office memorandum prepared by the State‘s Attorney for his deputy assigned to try the case summarizes a subsequent telephone conversation he had with the judge that same day:
“Judge Shure indicat[ed] that he was not going to take the case off the docket, but was going to grant the continuance; that [defense counsel] was going to be in court for the record, but understood that the case should be entitled to a continuance when the witness disappears. The Judge indicated he would like to try to restrict us to 30 days to prepare the case for trial. I indicated we would not be able to if we had to extradite witnesses. He indicated we could dismiss our witnesses, since the case would not be tried on that date.” (Emphasis added.)
Promptly following the conversation referred to in this memorandum, the State filed a formal motion for a continuance and advised its remaining witnesses that the case would not be tried on June 11, but would be rescheduled for a subsequent date. Still later that Friday afternoon, Lieutenant Skaife was notified that on Monday morning (June 11), though a formal hearing was necessary, the State‘s request for a continuance would be granted.
In what might be termed an unexpected turn of events, Mrs. Linn, having learned of the lieutenant‘s efforts to contact her, telephoned him from Mississippi that same Friday, in the evening, between 6:00 and 7:00 p.m. Although the prosecutrix indicated she was willing to appear and testify on Monday, the police officer informed her the State had already requested a continuance and that the trial would be set for another date. At the time of the June 11 hearing on the motion for a continuance, however, none of the participants in the hearing was aware of the fact that Mrs. Linn had been located. At that hearing counsel for Smith objected to the granting of a continuance, asserting that the State had had ample time to determine the whereabouts of its complaining witness and that he was then ready to proceed with the trial. He made oral motions to dismiss the indictment for lack of a speedy trial, for a speedy trial, and for release of his client on bond. Judge Shure, without specifically ruling on the petitioner‘s two speedy trial motions, granted the requested continuance, although in doing so he noted in his own handwriting on the
Upon learning that Mrs. Linn had been located and was willing to testify, the Deputy State‘s Attorney, on June 14, 1973, requested the assignment office to reschedule the case for trial as soon as possible. However, it was not until July 20, 1973, that the assignment office advised the parties that the trial had been reset for November 15. Alleging principally that his mental condition had deteriorated significantly since June 11 and that he was now unable to aid in his own defense, the petitioner filed another motion, on November 7, 1973, to dismiss his indictment on the ground that his right to a speedy trial had been denied. At the hearing on this motion held before Judge Mathias on November 14, Dr. David A. Lanham, a psychiatrist who had seen Smith frequently since November 12, 1972, for evaluation and treatment, testified that the petitioner‘s condition had worsened to the extent that he was unable to hold employment and also expressed doubt that Smith could at that time assist in his own defense. Confronted with this testimony, Judge Mathias recommitted the petitioner to Perkins Hospital, ordering it to complete and submit to the court a reevaluation within 14 days, and deferred ruling on the dismissal motion until the time of trial. Following a one-hour examination of the petitioner on November 26, the acting superintendent of the hospital reported to the court that in his opinion Smith‘s mental condition had improved substantially during the past year and that he was “presently able to understand the nature and object of the proceedings against him and to assist in his defense.”
At a point undisclosed by the record, some time between November 14 and December 4, 1973, the trial was rescheduled to commence on January 3, 1974. However, because the principal investigating officer was to be out of the country on military assignment from December 16, 1973, to January 7, 1974, the State, on December 4, 1973, requested an additional continuance. The court, notwithstanding the petitioner‘s objection and renewed mo-
Finally, more than 16 months after arrest and 15 months after indictment, the petitioner received his day in court. At his trial which was conducted on January 23, 24 and 28, Smith was found guilty and his speedy trial motions were denied. On appeal, the Court of Special Appeals, with Judge Davidson dissenting, concluded that, although the delay was of such duration that it “did reach constitutional dimensions,” Smith‘s right to a speedy trial had not been violated.
Before demonstrating why we conclude these facts indicate that the petitioner was denied the prompt trial guaranteed him by both the State and Federal Constitutions, we will briefly discuss the interplay between these two constitutional provisions.
“the decisions of the United States [Supreme] Court, in reference to the corresponding provisions of the Federal Constitution, are adopted by [the Maryland] court as authority which is very persuasive, although not necessarily controlling.”
The accuracy of this statement has been demonstrated by decisions of this Court interpreting other rights protected by
The contours of the
(1) Length of Delay
The interval between the time one becomes an “accused”4 and the date his case is tried must be determined since unless that period is sufficiently extensive to be “presumptively prejudicial, there is no necessity for inquiry into the other factors that go into the balance.” Barker v. Wingo, supra, 407 U. S. at 530, 92 S. Ct. at 2192. We conclude that Epps, 276 Md. at 111, 345 A. 2d at 72, is dispositive of that issue in this case since there this Court unanimously concluded that a one-year, fourteen-day delay was sufficient to require us to engage in the sensitive balancing procedure outlined in Barker. Inasmuch as the 16-month delay between Smith‘s arrest and trial exceeded that in Epps, a fortiori we must enter into the balancing process here. Additionally, the length of the delay, 16 months, should, by itself, be given some, but not determinative, weight.
(2) Reasons for the Delay
In Barker, Mr. Justice Powell, for the Supreme Court, expressed the view that “different weights should be assigned to different reasons [for delay].” 407 U. S. at 531, 92 S. Ct. at 2192. Initially, he observed that “[a] deliberate attempt to delay the trial in order to hamper the defense should be weighted heavily against the government.” Id. He
In this case, it can be forcefully argued that every postponement of petitioner‘s trial occurring after Smith‘s first medical examination was caused by the State; consequently we must carefully scrutinize the justifications assigned by the State for each ensuing delay. Although, following his first trip to Perkins Hospital, the petitioner was returned on December 11, 1972, to the Montgomery County Detention Center to await trial, the date set for this event was June 11, 1973, a full six months later. While Smith may have been ready for trial prior to June 11, he made no request for an earlier trial date; in the absence of such a demand or of prejudice shown to have emanated from this interval, the pre-June 11 delay alone may not have been sufficient to have violated his constitutional right. We need not decide that question, however, since what subsequently occurred, in our view, clearly tips the balance so as to require a finding that the petitioner‘s right to a speedy trial was violated.
As for the June 11 trial date itself, although the prosecutor was notified of it on March 14, 1973, the State made no serious effort to locate the complaining witness until a few days before the scheduled trial; the result was
In our evaluation the crucial delay occurred between the original trial date of June 11, 1973, and November 15, 1973, the date on which the trial was first rescheduled to begin. Even though, once the Deputy State‘s Attorney learned that the prosecutrix had been located, he promptly asked the assignment office to “set this case for trial at the earliest available date,” it was not until July 20, 1973, that the assignment office advised the parties that the trial was scheduled for November 15 of that year. No reason has been given for either the relatively long delay between the time of the request (June 14) and the time of the advisement (July 20) or for the inordinate length of time between June 11, the date originally set for trial, and November 15, the date on which the reset trial was to begin. Again, whether these protracted delays were the result of dereliction on the part of the State‘s Attorney‘s office or the assignment office is immaterial since both are agencies of the State. In this regard it must be remembered, as the Supreme Court
Although the Supreme Court has indicated that delays necessitated by missing witnesses can be considered neutral, Barker v. Wingo, supra, 407 U. S. at 531, 92 S. Ct. at 2192, it may be that the additional delay, from January 3 to 23, 1974, caused by the State‘s principal investigator‘s military assignment (which might not have qualified him to be classified as a “missing witness“) should also be assessed against the State. We say this not only because the State brought about the postponement of the trial until January 3, 1974, but also because, when, on December 4, 1973, the State requested the further continuance until January 23 to accommodate its witness, it could have asked that the trial
(3) Defendant‘s Assertion of His Right
It is not disputed that counsel for Smith asserted, repeatedly, his client‘s constitutional right to a speedy trial. Motions were first made orally on June 11, 1973, and renewed on November 7, December 4, and finally at trial in January of 1974. Moreover, as described more fully in the statement of facts, the State‘s Attorney‘s office was fully aware of the requests and cognizant of the trial court‘s interest in the speedy disposition of this case. These repeated demands must be weighed as supportive of the petitioner‘s position that he was denied a speedy trial.
(4) Prejudice to the Defendant
The Supreme Court has stated that under the Barker guidelines an affirmative demonstration of prejudice by the defendant is not necessary in order to prove a violation of the
In Barker the Supreme Court said that “[p]rejudice . . . should be assessed in the light of the interests of defendants which the speedy trial right was designed to protect.” 407 U. S. at 532, 92 S. Ct. at 2193. One such interest was to “prevent oppressive pretrial incarceration.” Id. Smith was subjected to almost nine months of pretrial incarceration — from
It must be remembered that societal interests, as well as those of the accused, are protected and effectuated by the state and federal speedy trial clauses. In fact, dilatoriness, at which the two speedy trial rights take aim, undermines the entire criminal justice system by: enabling defendants to
Having examined the facts of this case in relation to the four factors mentioned in Barker, and applying the “difficult and sensitive balancing process” mandated by that case, 407 U. S. at 533, 92 S. Ct. at 2193, we conclude that the petitioner was denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial as guaranteed by the
Judgment of the Court of Special Appeals reversed; case remanded to that court with directions that it be remanded to the Circuit Court for Montgomery County with instructions to dismiss the indictment; costs to be paid by Montgomery County.
Although I agree with the conclusion reached by the majority that the appellant was denied the right to a speedy trial guaranteed him under both the
In Epps v. State, 276 Md. 96, 345 A. 2d 62 (1975), we recently examined the right to a speedy trial and those factors delineated by the Supreme Court in Barker v. Wingo, 407 U. S. 514 (1972) as applicable in determining whether that right has been denied. We there pointed out that “in Klopfer v. North Carolina, 386 U. S. 213, 223 (1967) [the Supreme Court] made clear . . . that the right [to a speedy trial] is ‘as fundamental as any of the rights secured by the
Notwithstanding my recognition of the protections afforded through our own Declaration of Rights, as I see it, the provisions of the
I believe it equally anachronistic to suggest a continuation of the categorizations designated in 1915 by the late Judge Alfred S. Niles in his recognized treatise on Maryland Constitutional Law, in view of the application by the Supreme Court, since that date, of specific rights guaranteed under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Ninth Amendments to the United States Constitution, as binding upon the States pursuant to the “due process” clause of the
Because of the view adopted by the majority concerning the noncontrolling effect of the decisions of the Supreme Court in the area of a speedy trial, they seem to suggest the view (in footnote 2) that in Maryland the demand-waiver doctrine, which requires a holding that a defendant waived his right to a speedy trial if he failed to demand it, may still be of continuing force and effect. The majority thus suggests that our prior holdings in State v. Murdock, 235 Md. 116, 123, 200 A. 2d 666, 669-70, cert. denied, 379 U. S. 914 (1964) and in Harris v. State, 194 Md. 288, 297, 71 A. 2d 36, 40 (1950), both antedating Barker v. Wingo, may still have viability. We pointed out in Epps that in Barker v. Wingo, the Supreme Court had specifically rejected the demand-waiver doctrine, as a criterion for invocation of the right to a speedy trial, but recognized that the defendant‘s assertion of his right, or his failure to do so, was but one of the factors to be considered in applying the right guaranteed by the sixth amendment. As a result of the decision in Barker v. Wingo, it appears to be no longer open to question that the demand-waiver doctrine heretofore applied by this Court in State v. Murdock, supra, and in Harris v. State,
I think further that the majority should have made it clear that the interval between October 6, 1972, when the defendant filed a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity and was thereupon committed to Perkins State Hospital for examination, pursuant to
The Supreme Court recognized in United States v. Ewell, 383 U. S. 116, 120 (1966), that “because of the many procedural safeguards provided an accused, the ordinary procedures for criminal prosecution are designed to move at a deliberate pace.” In Epps, we recognized that “[f]or ‘speedy trial’ purposes the delay involved is reckoned only in connection with ‘the passage of time beyond that which is obviously within the requirements of orderly procedure‘” citing State v. Lawless, 13 Md. App. 220, 230, 283 A. 2d 160, 169 (1972). Smith‘s confinement at Perkins Hospital, in an attempt to establish his pleaded defense, could certainly be said to come within the scope of “orderly procedure” prior to the scheduling of his trial. Since his commitment was at his own behest, the computation of time affecting his right to a speedy trial should be held in abeyance pending receipt of the hospital‘s report to the trial court, pursuant to
Though I agree with the view of the majority that “if the petitioner‘s trial had taken place within a few days of June
Lastly, I am unable to agree with the majority‘s conclusion that the delay between June 11 and November 15, 1973, while unforgivable for speedy trial purposes in Montgomery County, might be acceptable in Baltimore City. They express the view: “although the delay in this case might have been understandable, and possibly even acceptable, in an extremely congested court such as Baltimore City‘s criminal court, the State has not suggested that similar congestion existed or exists in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County.” Although the record is devoid of whatever reason there may have been for the delay between June 11th (when the trial judge indicated a continuance restricted to 30 days) and the rescheduling, on July 20, 1973, by the assignment office, of the trial for November 15th, the majority seems to be taking judicial notice of a difference in the status of the criminal trial dockets between Montgomery County and Baltimore City. Upon such an unsupported premise they seem to suggest a differing application of constitutional principles between subdivisions within the State. In Epps, it was held that the delay in affording a criminal defendant a “speedy trial” because of overcrowded court dockets and scheduling problems in Baltimore City, was not excusable. Concluding that the responsibility for affording a defendant a speedy trial rests upon both the courts and the prosecutors, we there found that if a defendant‘s rights to a speedy trial are being infringed, the courts, as well as the assignment offices acting as their agencies, together with the prosecutors, have the duty to promptly assign a defendant‘s case for trial. As pointed out in Barker v. Wingo, supra, and in Strunk v. United States, 412 U. S. 434 (1973), although “[u]nintentional delays caused by overcrowded court dockets or understaffed prosecutors are among the factors to be weighed less heavily than intentional delay,” they must “be considered since the ultimate responsibility for such circumstances must rest
Assuming that Smith‘s case was not more promptly rescheduled for trial after June 11th because of a lack of communication between the trial court and the court‘s assignment office, or the prosecutor and that office, or from clerical inefficiencies, if the delay was of constitutional dimension in Montgomery County, it should be treated as having equal constitutional significance throughout the State without regard to the status of the docket. Fully appreciating that there may be realistic reasons, factually supportable, for delay in the trial of a defendant, which might vary within subdivisions of the State, the application of the constitutional principles concerning the denial of the right to a speedy trial should be consistent.