The Double Jeopardy Clause of the United States Constitution, as well as Maryland common law, protects a defendant from being subject twice to criminal proceedings for the same offense. U.S. Const. amend. V; Hubbard v. State, 395 Md. 73, 91-92, 909 A.2d 270, 280-81 (2006). Where a mistrial is declared because of manifest necessity, however, retrial is not prohibited. Hubbard, 395 Md. at 89, 909 A.2d at 279.
Prior to the conclusion of jury deliberations in the present case in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, the jury sent an unsolicited, completed verdict sheet to the trial judge indicating apparently that the jury voted unanimously to acquit Respondent, Sean Fennell, on charges of first degree assault, conspiracy to commit first degree assault, and conspiracy to commit robbery. The jury sheet indicated further, however, that the jury had not agreed unanimously as to disposition of an additional charge of robbery and a lesser included charge to first degree assault of second degree assault. After examining this “gift,” the trial judge instructed the jury to continue to deliberate “regarding the counts as to which you are undecided.” The jury continued to deliberate, but, upon being called back into open court, indicated that it was not making progress and was unable to reach a unanimous verdict. Fennell, through counsel, requested of the judge that he take a partial verdict on the counts as to which the jury indicated unanimity previously. The State objected. The judge declared a mistrial as to all counts. A retrial date
On these facts, all agree now that Fennell may be retried on the charges of second degree assault and robbery; the parties diverge, however, as to whether Fennell may be retried for first degree assault, conspiracy to commit first degree assault, and conspiracy to commit robbery. For reasons we shall explain, we conclude, on the unusual posture of this case, that retrial of Fennell on the latter three charges is prohibited by principles of double jeopardy.
RELEVANT FACTUAL
On 6 May 2010, Fennell was indicted in the Circuit Court on the following four counts: (1) first degree assault; (2) conspiracy to commit first degree assault; (3) robbery; and, (4) conspiracy to commit robbery. A one day jury trial took place on 18 October 2010. The jury began deliberations at approximately 5:50 p.m.
Count One: As to the charge of First Degree Assault, we, the jury, find the Defendant:
Not Guilty 12 Guilty 0
If you find the Defendant guilty of Count One, go on to decide Count Two. If you find the defendant not guilty of First Degree Assault, then consider whether he is, guilty, as to the charge of Second Degree Assault:
*507 Not Guilty 6 Guilty 6
Count Two: As to the charge of Conspiracy to commit
First Degree Assault, we, the jury, find the Defendant:
Not Guilty 12 Guilty 0
Count Three: As to the charge of Robbery, we, the jury, find the Defendant:
Not Guilty 6 Guilty 5[3 ]
Count Four: As to the charge of Conspiracy to Commit Robbery, we, the jury, find the Defendant:
Not Guilty 12 Guilty 0
After sharing the unsolicited verdict sheet with the parties, the following exchange occurred between counsel and the judge:
THE COURT: Please have a seat. I thought I had seen everything. Apparently, they knocked on the door, and handed this to [the bailiff], having been fed.
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Interesting that Count 3 doesn’t add up to 12. You can’t abstain, right?
THE COURT: Well, they’re forcing the issue a little bit. The jury has obviously not reached a verdict on about half the counts. They went out about 5:00, didn’t they?
[COURT CLERK]: I believe it was at 10 of 6:00.
THE COURT: Ten of 6:00.
[PROSECUTOR]: Yes, I thought it was closer to 6:00.
THE COURT: The question now is like I say three options. They can continue to deliberate tonight, come back tomorrow, or call it a day. They haven’t been out very long. How about please continue to deliberate?
[PROSECUTOR]: I know there’s a specific jury instruction for—
THE COURT: I think we already gave it.
[PROSECUTOR]: Okay.
*508 THE COURT: The [modified Allen4 ] charge—
[PROSECUTOR]: Yes.
THE COURT: Yes, I think that was—
Please continue to deliberate. Your verdict must be unanimous?
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Judge?
[THE COURT]: Yes, sir.
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: The only thing I would ask you to consider would be please continue to deliberate on the counts of which you are still undecided. Those must be unanimous, as well. Would that work?
THE COURT: Yes, as to which you remain undecided. Please continue to deliberate regarding the counts as to which you are undecided. Your verdict as to each count must be unanimous. Thank you.
Well, thank you. I don’t think we ought to keep them past 9:30 [p.m.].
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Okay.
[PROSECUTOR]: Okay.
[THE COURT]: Thank you.
[PROSECUTOR]: Thank you.
[THE COURT]: I guess we better send [the filled-in verdict sheet] back in there, or give them a clean copy.
THE BAILIFF: I gave them a clean copy.
THE COURT: I don’t think we ought to keep them any longer tonight. The question is do we make them come back in the morning. I’ll hear whatever suggestions either of you want to make at this point.
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Your Honor, possibly we could just bring them in and say exactly what you said, do you guys think it would be worth it deliberating [ ] tomorrow or are you making progress.
[PROSECUTOR]: I think, in reality, they really haven’t been deliberating that long. I don’t think, in this kind of case, it would be that unusual. And I think it is obviously worth it to bring them back in the morning.
THE COURT: How long have they been — three and a half hours. Well, let’s bring them in and see whether they’re close to reaching a verdict.
The jury having been brought into the courtroom, the trial judge engaged in the following exchange with the jury foreperson:
THE COURT: Please have a seat. Madam Forelady, is there any possibility that upon further deliberation this evening you could reach a verdict?
THE FOREPERSON: No.
THE COURT: Well, then the question is could you reach one tomorrow? Are you making any progress?
THE FOREPERSON: No, it’s—
(Discussion off the record.)
THE FOREPERSON: Yeah, there’s a clear division on the amount of evidence, and how you read the evidence.
THE COURT: I’m going to ask you to go back in there while 1 confer with counsel.
The jury left the courtroom, and then the following ensued:
THE COURT: It doesn’t look to me like much has changed in the last hour or so.
*510 [PROSECUTOR]: It probably depends who you ask sitting there.
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Yes, they’re split 50/50 on whether—
[PROSECUTOR]: They’re making progress or not.
[THE COURT]: They can’t even decide if they’re making progress.
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Right. We’re ready to ask you to let it go, Judge. You know, take the three or four they gave, and—
[PROSECUTOR]: We’re not in a position to accept a partial verdict.
THE COURT: I think, reluctantly, I must declare a mistrial. I don’t think there’s going to be any movement. There’s no sign of it. I don’t think there’s a lack of evidence. I just think that the evidence is capable of more than one interpretation depending on whom you believe.
So, I think for better or worse, that’s it.
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: So, the one’s [sic] where they have reached a unanimous verdict we’re not—
THE COURT: I’m not going to take a verdict at all.
[DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Okay.
[PROSECUTOR]: Obviously, we can’t get a trial date from assignment at this point. We’ll call tomorrow.
(The jury entered the courtroom.)
THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the Court determines that it’s very unlikely that you will reach a verdict. I hereby declare a mistrial, which means that the State will have the option of retrying this case at some future date.
On 22 December 2010,
A panel of the Court of Special Appeals, in an unreported opinion filed on 4 May 2012, reversed the judgment of the Circuit Court, determining that there was no manifest necessity for a mistrial and that retrial on the three counts for which the jury indicated a unanimous vote on the verdict sheet was barred by double jeopardy. Characterizing the trial court’s action as declaring sua sponte a mistrial, the intermediate appellate court noted that a mistrial was appropriate only if there was “manifest necessity for the act.” (quoting Cornish v. State, 272 Md. 312, 317, 322 A.2d 880, 884 (1974) (quoting United States v. Perez, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 579, 580, 6 L.Ed. 165, 165 (1824))). In order to find a manifest necessity, the court stated, the trial judge “must engage in the process of exploring reasonable alternatives and determine that there is no reasonable alternative to the mistrial.” (quoting Hubbard v.
The State filed a petition for writ of certiorari, which we granted on 19 October 2012, 429 Md. 81, 54 A.3d 759 (2012), to consider the following questions:
(1) Where the jury sends to the court a verdict sheet documenting the jurors’ votes as to each charge and the court, with the consent of defense counsel, sends the jury back for further deliberations, is it a proper exercise of the court’s discretion to later declare a mistrial as to all charges when, upon further inquiry with the jury, the court concluded that the jurors were unable to reach a verdict?
(2) Is a circuit court required to accept a partial verdict at the request of one party and over the objection of the other?
ANALYSIS
The State contends primarily that the trial judge exercised properly his discretion in declaring a mistrial be
The Double Jeopardy Clause of the United States Constitution, which applies to state criminal proceedings through the Fourteenth Amendment, Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784, 796, 89 S.Ct. 2056, 2062, 23 L.Ed.2d 707, 715 (1969), provides that “[n]o person [shall] be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life and limb.” U.S. Const, amend. V. Although the Maryland Constitution does not contain an analogous clause, Maryland common law protects similarly an accused against double jeopardy.
The decision to declare a mistrial is an exercise of the trial judge’s discretion and is entitled to great deference by a reviewing court. Renico v. Lett, 559 U.S. 766,-, 130 S.Ct. 1855, 1863, 176 L.Ed.2d 678, 687 (2010); Washington, 434 U.S. at 509-10, 98 S.Ct. at 832, 54 L.Ed.2d at 731. A genuinely deadlocked jury is considered the prototypical example of a manifest necessity for a mistrial. Blueford v. Arkansas, — U.S. -, -, 132 S.Ct. 2044, 2052, 182 L.Ed.2d 937, 945 (2012); State v. Crutchfield, 318 Md. 200, 209, 567 A.2d 449, 453 (1989). The term “genuinely deadlocked” suggests, however, “more than an impasse; it invokes a moment where, if deliberations were to continue, ‘there exists a significant risk that a verdict may result from pressures inherent in the situation rather than the considered judgment of all the jurors.’ ” United States v. Razmilovic, 507
Consistent with the discretion vested in trial judges, the Supreme Court has declined repeatedly to require, as a matter of constitutional dimension, that trial judges undertake specific steps prior to declaring a mistrial. Blueford, — U.S. at-, 132 S.Ct. at 2052, 182 L.Ed.2d at 945; Renico, 559 U.S. at-, 130 S.Ct. at 1864, 176 L.Ed.2d at 688. As the Supreme Court stated recently in Renico v. Lett, it has “never required a trial judge, before declaring a mistrial on jury deadlock, to force the jury to deliberate for a minimum period of time, to question the jurors individually, to consult with (or obtain the consent of) either the prosecutor or defense counsel, to issue a supplemental jury instruction, or to consider any other means of breaking the impasse.” 559 U.S. at-, 130 S.Ct. at 1864, 176 L.Ed.2d at 688. Rather, the determination of whether there is manifest necessity for a mistrial — or, a “high degree” of necessity, Washington, 434 U.S. at 506-07, 98 S.Ct. at 831, 54 L.Ed.2d at 728 — is a fact-specific inquiry not reducible to “a standard that can be applied mechanically or without attention to the particular problem confronting the trial judge.” Id. at 505-06, 509-10, 98 S.Ct. at 830-32, 54 L.Ed.2d at 728-29 (noting that deference to a trial judge’s discretion guards against the possibility of trial judges otherwise “employ[ing] coercive means to break the apparent deadlock,” which might create “a significant risk that a verdict may result from the pressures inherent in the situation rather than the considered judgment of all the jurors”); Perez, 22 U.S. at 580, 6 L.Ed. at 165 (noting that trial judges must “tak[e] all the circumstances into consideration,” “exercise a sound discretion,” and use the power to declare a mistrial “with the greatest caution, under urgent circumstances”).
The State criticizes the intermediate appellate court’s reliance in the present case on our decision in Hubbard v. State, 395 Md. 73, 909 A.2d 270 (2006), in finding no manifest necessity for a mistrial here. In Hubbard, we considered whether manifest necessity for a mistrial existed where “a
The State argues that, because Hubbard did not concern manifest necessity by reason of a deadlocked jury, it is inapposite to the present case. Instead, the State contends that the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Blueford v. Arkansas, -U.S.-, 132 S.Ct. 2044, 182 L.Ed.2d 937 (2012), governs the manifest necessity analysis here.
We disagree with the implication of the State’s theory that Blueford renders inapplicable, in cases where a judge determines a hung jury exists, our analysis in Hubbard requiring a judge to consider reasonable alternatives to a mistrial. Although the Supreme Court refuses to require trial courts to jump over specified hurdles in mechanical fashion prior to declaring a mistrial, its preference for the exercise of judicial discretion does not obviate the manifest necessity analysis. See Somerville, 410 U.S. at 462, 93 S.Ct. at 1069, 35 L.Ed.2d at 430 (noting that mistrial by manifest necessity is appropriate where “the ends of substantial justice cannot be attained without discontinuing the trial” (quoting Gori v. United States, 367 U.S. 364, 368, 81 S.Ct. 1523, 1526, 6 L.Ed.2d 901, 904 (1961))). The trial court must determine still that no reason
Unlike Arkansas, however, Maryland permits partial verdicts under the circumstances present here. In determining that no manifest necessity for a mistrial existed as to the three charges in dispute, the Court of Special Appeals relied implicitly on Maryland Rule 4-327(d), which provides that, “[w]hen there are two or more counts, the jury may return a verdict with respect to a count as to which it has agreed, and any
The State appears to concede in its brief that, if the jury indicates an intention to render a partial verdict, “the court may not preclude the jury from doing so.”
Where, however, the jury indicates to the court that unanimity was achieved, at some point, on one or more counts, Maryland Rule 4-327(d) points the way for a trial judge to a reasonable alternative to the declaration of a mistrial. Thus, prior to declaring a mistrial without consent on those counts, the trial judge generally should take steps to determine that genuine deadlock exists as to those counts. See, e.g., United States v. Razmilovic, 507 F.3d 130, 137-40 (2d Cir.2007) (conducting a fact-specific inquiry into whether the jury was deadlocked genuinely); In re Ford, 987 F.2d 334, 340 (6th Cir.1992) (holding that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in declining to instruct the jury regarding a partial verdict where the judge’s examination of the tentative verdict sheets revealed no indication of jury unanimity). One reasonable alternative is an inquiry into the jury’s status and intention to render a verdict regarding those counts as to which unanimity appears, self-reported, to exist.
Although we agree with the State that the partial verdict inquiry is largely an exercise of the trial judge’s discretion, we disagree that the principle salvages the trial judge’s conduct in the present case. The State characterizes the record in this case as demonstrating “clearly” that the jury did not intend to render a partial verdict. Viewing the record as a whole, however, we conclude that the jury’s unsolicited submission of the completed verdict sheet, the trial judge’s subsequent instructions, and the ultimate colloquy between the jury foreperson and the trial court reveals an ambiguity as to the jury’s intent and resulting deadlock that was never resolved satisfactorily by the trial court. The jury’s delivery to the court of the verdict sheet indicated facially that the jury agreed unanimously to acquit the defendant on the charges of first degree assault, conspiracy to commit first degree assault, and conspiracy to commit robbery, but was deadlocked as to the remaining two charges. The verdict sheet indicated unambiguously, at least at that stage in the
In Blueford, the Supreme Court determined that, when the jury was sent for further deliberations, any finality that could be inferred from the jury’s earlier rendering of the verdict sheet dissipated. Although the verdict sheet here was not final in any way so as to constitute a complete final verdict, see Ogundipe, 424 Md. at 72, 33 A.3d at 992, we note that, unlike in Blueford, the instructions to the jury could be understood reasonably as instructing the jury to continue deliberations only as to the charges of second degree assault and robbery. Although the trial court in no way prohibited the jury from reconsidering its prior vote, the instructions, which requested the jury to continue deliberations “regarding the counts as to which [they] are undecided,” were given to the jury directly after the jury indicated to the court that apparently it was unanimous as to acquittal on the other three charges. Thus, one logical interpretation of the instructions by a reasonable juror would be that the trial court directed the jury to continue deliberating as to the two counts to which it indicated it had been unable to achieve unanimity.
The last colloquy between the judge and jury foreperson, occurring before the trial court declared the mistrial, must be
Unlike in Caldwell, where the trial judge sought actively the entry of partial verdicts due to emergency and brought the jury’s deliberations “to an abrupt conclusion,” the jury here returned the verdict sheet to the court “on [its] own timetable.” 164 Md.App. at 643-44, 884 A.2d at 217. Asking the jury for further clarification of that decision, in light of the ambiguity inherent here, was unlikely to raise the specter of coercion — particularly where, as here, the trial court decided already, with Fennell’s consent, to declare a mistrial as to the eoncededly unresolved counts. Because the trial judge was on notice that the jury may have reached a partial verdict, an ambiguity as to unanimity persisted through the colloquy with the jury, defense counsel requested a partial verdict, and the specter of coercion was low due to the posture of the jury’s deliberations, Maryland Rule 4-327(d) provided the trial judge with a reasonable alternative to the declaration of a mistrial. Thus, before a proper finding of manifest necessity for a mistrial could have been made, the trial judge should have inquired into the jury’s status of unanimity prior to its discharge. Failure to do so was an abuse of discretion, and retrial on the charges of first degree assault, conspiracy to commit first degree assault, and conspiracy to commit robbery is barred by double jeopardy.
BATTAGLIA, J., joins judgment only.
Judge BATTAGLIA joins the judgment only.
. We need not recount the facts underlying the charges as they are not relevant to the legal dispute presented by the case in the posture it reaches us.
. The jury sent to the judge a note, prior to the critical communications at the heart of this case, asking, at approximately 8:10 p.m., "What do we do if we cannot come to a unanimous decision?” The trial judge wrote back a response, with the consent of counsel, that the verdict “must be unanimous, please continue to deliberate.”
. This is not a typographical error in this opinion. It is the number entered by whomever on the twelve-person jury filled in the verdict sheet.
. An Allen charge is derived from an instruction given to a deadlocked jury as discussed by the United States Supreme Court in Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492, 17 S.Ct. 154, 41 L.Ed. 528 (1896). In Allen, the Supreme Court approved an instruction "in which the jury was specifically asked to conciliate their differences and reach a verdict.” Kelly v. State, 270 Md. 139, 140 n. 1, 310 A.2d 538, 539 n. 1 (1973). The instruction "is intended to stress to jurors the necessity of unanimity in their decision, as well as to encourage a juror to listen to the viewpoints of the other jurors.” Ruffin v. State, 394 Md. 355, 359 n. 2, 906 A.2d 360, 363 n. 2 (2006).
. Previously, a status conference had been held at which a new trial date had been set to re-tiy Fennell on all counts.
. Maryland Rule 4-327(d) states, "When there are two or more counts, the jury may return a verdict with respect to a count as to which it has agreed, and any count as to which the jury cannot agree may be tried again.” In Maryland, a partial verdict is “a verdict on less than all counts in a multi-count case.” Caldwell v. State, 164 Md.App. 612, 631, 884 A.2d 199, 209 (2005). Although partial verdicts are accepted as a general rule, see generally Selvester v. United States, 170 U.S. 262, 18 S.Ct. 580, 42 L.Ed. 1029 (1898), jurisdictions are split generally as to whether partial verdicts may be entered on one or more lesser included offenses. See, e.g., State v. Tate, 256 Conn. 262, 773 A.2d 308, 322-23 (2001) (discussing jurisdictions permitting a court to take a partial verdict of acquittal on a greater offense when the jury is deadlocked on the lesser offenses); Whiteaker v. State, 808 P.2d 270, 274-75 (Alaska Ct.App.1991) (discussing jurisdictional differences regarding acceptance of partial verdicts on greater and lesser included offenses). The Maryland Rules do not specify (and we have not decided expressly) whether a partial verdict may be entered on a greater offense where the jury is hung as to the lesser included offenses. Because the parties do not dispute the Court of Special Appeals's decision that retrial is barred by double jeopardy on these grounds, we assume, without deciding, that the manifest necessity analysis with regard to partial verdicts applies equally where a jury votes to acquit on a greater offense and is hung as to a lesser-included offense.
. The Maryland common law prohibition on double jeopardy employs the same principles as the federal Constitution. Hubbard, 395 Md. at 91, 909 A.2d at 280. See United States v. Wilson, 420 U.S. 332, 339-42, 95 S.Ct. 1013, 1020-21, 43 L.Ed.2d 232, 239-41 (1975) (discussing the foundation of double jeopardy principles in the common law pleas of autrefois acquit, autrefois convict, and pardon); State v. Taylor, 371 Md. 617, 630-31, 810 A.2d 964, 971-72 (2002) (same). In considering whether a mistrial was granted properly by the trial court, this Court has followed generally the principles laid out by the Supreme Court. See, e.g., Hubbard, 395 Md. at 91, 909 A.2d at 280 (relying on the Supreme Court’s recognition that “there must be no reasonable alternative to the declaration of a mistrial” to establish manifest necessity); State v. Woodson, 338 Md. 322, 329, 658 A.2d 272, 276 (1995) (relying on Supreme Court precedent in discussing manifest necessity); State v. Crutchfield, 318 Md. 200, 207-09, 567 A.2d 449, 452-53 (1989) (following the framework established by the Supreme Court in United States v. Perez, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 579, 6 L.Ed. 165 (1824), for the double jeopardy manifest necessity requirement); Cornish v. State, 272 Md. 312, 317-18, 322 A.2d 880, 884 (1974) (determining whether manifest necessity for a mistrial existed under Supreme Court case law).
. As the Court of Special Appeals noted, no final judgment was entered with respect to any of the charges against Fennell. See Ogundipe v.
. We note that, with respect to the three charges at issue here, the trial judge declared a sua sponte mistrial, in effect. Defense counsel consented — and indeed requested — a mistrial as to the two indisputably undecided charges, but requested a partial verdict (and thereby did not consent to the mistrial) as to the three charges at issue. Therefore, the manifest necessity standard applies. See Washington, 434 U.S. at 505, 98 S.Ct. at 824, 54 L.Ed.2d at 728; Caldwell, 164 Md.App. at 647, 884 A.2d at 219.
The State argued also in the Court of Special Appeals that Fennell did not object before the trial court to the declaration of a mistrial and thus the issue is not preserved for appellate review. Specifically, the State
. The Supreme Court had not decided Blueford at the time the intermediate appellate court decided the present case.
. The defendant in Blueford was charged with capital murder, which, under Arkansas law, contains the lesser-included offenses of first-degree murder, manslaughter, and negligent homicide. -U.S. at-, 132 S.Ct. at 2048, 182 L.Ed.2d at 941.
. In fact, some of the Amici in Blueford sought adoption of a per se rule requiring trial judges to take partial verdicts wherever any unanimity exists as a prerequisite to a finding of manifest necessity as to the remaining counts — in effect, requiring even states that do not permit partial verdicts in certain circumstances to accept them. See, e.g., Brief for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as Amicus Curiae Supporting Petitioner, Blueford v. Arkansas, - U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 2044, 182 L.Ed.2d 937 (2012).
. The majority of jurisdictions accepting partial verdicts are in accord with this interpretation. See, e.g., Wallace v. Havener, 552 F.2d 721, 723 (6th Cir.1977) (holding that the trial judge abused his discretion in not accepting partial verdicts as to counts on which the jury indicated unanimity); Daniels v. Burt, 895 F.Supp. 180, 184 (E.D.Mich.1995) (“Had the jury indicated or even suggested that it had reached a verdict as to some of the offenses, the trial judge would have constitutionally erred in declaring a mistrial without accepting the jury’s partial verdict.”); Sturms v. Woodland Justice Court, 4 Cal.App.3d 36, 84 Cal.Rptr. 69 (1970) (prohibiting retrial of a defendant as barred by double jeopardy, due to discharge of the jury “without legal necessity,” where the judge declined to enter a partial verdict after the jury indicated that it was agreed unanimously as to one count); Oliver v. Justices of New York Supreme Court of New York County, 36 N.Y.2d 53, 364 N.Y.S.2d 874, 324 N.E.2d 348 (1974) (requiring trial judge to accept partial verdict if the jury indicated agreement on some, but not all, counts, and further deliberations would be fruitless).
. Because it is not implicated in the present case, we need not consider the trial judge's discretion as it pertains to accepting or soliciting a partial verdict where the jury has not intimated that it may
. For example, in State v. Lewis, 172 N.C.App. 97, 616 S.E.2d 1, 6 (2005), the trial judge had the following colloquy with the jury after the jury indicated at the conclusion of deliberations that it could not reach a verdict:
THE COURT: Yesterday, at the end of the day, you didn’t say that you had reached a — perhaps reached a verdict as to one case. In fact, had you reached a verdict as to one of the cases and not signed the verdict sheet?
FOREPERSON: (Nods head affirmatively.)
THE COURT: Is that still the case?
FOREPERSON: No.
THE COURT: So, at this particular point there is no verdict as to either case?
FOREPERSON: Exactly.
. The State contends that Fennell should have sought the entry of a partial verdict at that juncture, rather than waiting until the termination of jury deliberations. Although the Maryland Rules do not prohibit the entry of an interim partial verdict, we do not think that defense counsel waived a timely partial verdict request by waiting until the conclusion of the proceeding. Nothing in the Maryland Rules requires counsel to request a partial verdict at the first intimation that the jury may have reached a verdict on one or more counts, but less than all counts.