Appendix — Anthony Grandison v. Maryland

Supreme Court brief1986

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

EDITOR'S NOTE

THE FOLLOWING PAGES WERE POOR HARD COPY

AT THE TIME OF FILMING. IF AND WHEN A

BETTER COPY CAN BE OBTAINED, A NEW FICHE

WILL BE ISSUED.

so. 85-7165

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER TERM, 1985

ANTHONY GRANDISON, SR.

Petitioner

Vv.

STATE OF MARYLAND,

Respondent

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND

APPENDIX

Ow” 4¥

RECEIVED AM 1986 \ ,)

POLICE DEPARTMENT 8/9118 11) 12) 1,2, 4 He

14/2)§

JU 6

am ae 1986 Nancy L. Cook

78,9) 10) 11) 12)1)2 34 i Appellate Advocacy Clinic

S Ui, 3 Washington College of Law

Vall wel NWLP The American University

4400 Massachusetts Ave., N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20016

(262) 885-1500

Counsel for Petitioner

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED

United States Constitution, Amendment V:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or

otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or

indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in

the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in

actual service in time of War or public danger; nor

shall any person be subject for the same offense to be

twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be

compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against

himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property

without due process of law; nor shall private property

be taken for public use, without just compensation.

United States Constitution, Amendment VI:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall

enjoy the right to a speedy trial, by an impartial j

of the State and district wherein the crime shall ha

been committed, which district shall have been

previously ascertained by iaw, and to be informed of the

nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted

with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory

process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to

have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

uUry

United States Constitution, Amendment VIII:

essive bail shall not be required, nor excessive

fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments

United States Constitution, Amendment XIV:

‘ (N)or shall any state deprive any person of

life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,

nor deny to any perscr within the jurisdiction the equal

protection of the laws

STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

Maryland Code (1957, 1982 Repl. Vol.) Art. 27, Sec. 412:

§ 412. Punishment for murder.

(a) Designation of degree for court or jury

-- If a person is found guilty of murder, the court of

ury that determined the person's guilt shall state in

he verdict whether the person is guilty of murder in

he first degree or murder in the second degree.

crt cF ww

(b) Penalty for

found guilty of murder

first degree murder.

in the first deg: >

A person

shall be

sentenced either

to death or

to imprisonment for life.

The sentence shall be

imprisonment for

life unless (1)

the State notified the person

days prior to trial that it

of death, and advised the per

in writing at least 30

intended to seek a sentence

son of each aggravating

circumstance upon which it intended to rely, and (2) a

sentence of death is imposed in accordance with § 413.

person found guilty of murder in the second degree sal}

be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 30 years.

Maryland Code (1957, 1982 Repl. Vol.) Art. 27, Sec. 413>

§ 413. Sentencing procedure upon finding of guilty of |

firsc degree murder.

. o e Ain au a oo

Separate sentencing proceeding required

If a person is found guilty of murder in the first

degree, and if the State had given the notice required

under Sec. 412(b), a separate sentencing proceeding

shall be conducted as soon as practicable after the

trial has been completed to determine whether he shall

be sentenced to death or imprisonment for life.

(b) Before whom proceeding conducted. -- This

proceeding shall be conducted:

(1) Before the jury that determined the

defendant's guilt; or

2 Before a jury impaneled for the purpose of the

proceeding if

(i) The defendant was convicted upon a plea of

guiity;

(ii) The defendant was convicted after a trial

before the court sitting without a jury;

(1) The following type of evidence

in this proceeding:

is admissible

;

(i) Evidence relating to any mitigating

circumstance listed in subsection \g) of this section;

(ii) Evidence relating to any aggravating

circumstance listed in subsection (d) of this section

which the State had notified the defendant pursuant to

Section 412(b);

(iii) Evidence of any prior criminal convictions,

pleas of guilty or nolo contendere, or the absence of

such prior convictions or pleas, to the same extent

admissible in other sentencing procedures;

i Any presentence investigation report.

However, any recommendation as to sentence contained in

the report is not admissible; and

(v Any other evidence that the court deems of

probative value and relevant to sentence, provided the

defendant is accorded a fair opportunity to rebut any

Statements.

(2 The State and the defendant or his counsel ma

present argument for or against the sentence of death

(3) After presentation of the evidence in a

proceeding before a jury, in addition to any other

appropriate instructions permitted by law, the court

shall instruct the jury as to the findings it must make

in order to determine whether the sentence shall be

death or imprisonment for life and the burden of proof

applicable to these findings in accordance with

subsection (f) or subsection (h) of this section.

(a) Consideration of aggravating circumstances

-- In determining the sentence, the court or jury, as

the case may be, shall first consider whether, beyond a

reasonable doubt, any of the following aggravating

circumstances exist:

(1 The victim was a law enforcement officer whc

was murdered while in the performance of his duties

(2) The defendant committed the murder at a time

when he was confined in any correctional institution

(3) The defendant committed the murder in

furtherance of an escape or an attempt to escape from

evade the lawful custody, arrest, or detention of or 5

an officer or guard of a correctional institution or »

a law enforcement officer

‘

(4) The victim was taken or attempted to be taken

in the course of a kidnapping or abduction or an attempt

to kidnap or abduct.

(5) The victim was a child abducted in violation

of § 2 of this article.

(6) The defendant committed the murder pursuant to

an agreement or contract for remuneration or the promise

of remuneration to commit the murder.

person to commit the murder and

pursuant to an agreement or cont:

the promise of remuneration.

(7) he defendant engaged or emp]

(8) At the time of the murder

under sentence of death or imprisonment f:

cf?

Oo &

~ ©

- J

cr?

re)

Le F

}

re)

aay

ae]

(9) The defend

of murder in th

incident.

(e) Definition. -- su

following terms have the meanin

contrary meaning is clearly int

which the term appears:

’

ite

—

)

;

o ®

1®

)

(2) The term “correctional institut

any institution for the detention or confinement

persons charged with or convicted of a

Patuxent Institution, any institution f

Or confinement of juveniles charged wit!

as being delinquent, and any hospital in

person was confined pursuant to an order of ac

exercising criminal jurisdiction.

‘?t +

m ¢

wy «rr

(3) The term "law enforcement officer” has the

meaning given in § 727 of Article 27. However, as used

the term also includes (i) an officer

lonary status, (ii) a parole and

d (iii) a law enforcement officer

tside of Maryland.

-4-

exist. -- If the court or jury does not find, beyond a

reasonable doubt, that one or more of these aggravating

circumstances exist, it shall state that conclusion in

writing, and the sentence shall be imprisonment for

life.

(g) Consideration of mitigating circumstances.

-- If the court or jury finds, beyond a reasonable

doubt, that one or more of these aggravating

circumstances exist, it shall then consider whether,

based upon a preponderance of the evidence, any of the

following mitigating circumstances exist:

1) The defendant has not previously (i) found

ty of a crime of violence, (ii) entered a plea of

ty or nolo contendere to a charge of a crime of

ence; or (iii) had a judgment of probation on stay

ntry of judgment entered on a charge of a crime of

ce. As used in this paragraph, “crime of

" means abduction, arson, escape, kidnapping,

manslaughter, except involuntary manslaughter, mayhem,

murder, robbery, or rape or sexual offense in the first

or second degree, or an attempt to commit any of these

offenses, or the use of a handgun in the commission of a

felony or another crime of violence.

2) The victim was a participant in the

| ndant's conduct or consented to the act which caused

the victim's death.

(3) The defendant acted under substantial dur

domination or provocation of another person, Dut no

substantial as to constitute a complete defense to

(4) The murder was committed while the capacity of

the defendant to appreciate the criminality of his

conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of

law was substantially impaired as a result of mental

incapacity, mental disorder, emotional disturbance, or

intoxication.

(5S) The youthful age of the defendant at the time

of the crime.

(6 The act of the defendant was not the sole

prox 0 cause of the victim's death.

It is unlikel t

7) ] at the defendant wi

ther criminal act

U )

h l

ity that would constitute a

in fur ivi

continuing threat to society.

(8) Any other facts which the jury or the court

specifically sets forth in writing that it finds as

Mitigating circumst@nces in the case.

(h) Weighing mitigating and aggravating

Circumstances. -- (1) If the court or jury finds

one or more of these mitigating circumstances exist

shall determine whether, by a preponderance of the

tha

rr ct

;

evidence, the mitigating circumstances outweigh the

aggravating circumstances.

(2) If it finds that the mitigating circumst

do not outweigh the aggravating circumstances, the

sentence shall be death.

(3) If it finds that the mit

outweigh the aggravating circumstan

shall be imprisonment for life.

ances

(i) Determination to be written and unanimou

The determination of the court or jury shall be in

writing, and, if a jury, shall be unanimous and sh

Signed by the foreman.

(3) t qui in determination. -

determination of the court or Jury shall state,

specifically:

(1) Which, if any, aggravating circumstances

finds to exist;

(2) Which, if any, mitigating circumstances

finds to exist;

3 Whether any mitigating circumstances fou

under subsection (g) Outweigh the aggravating

circumstances found under subsection (4d);

(4) Whether the aggravating circumstances fo

under subsection (d) are not Outweighed by mitigat

circumstances found under subsection (9g); and

(5) The sentence, determined in accordance w

subsection (f) or (h).

(k) Imposition of sentence. -- (l The

Shall impose the sentence determined by the jury u

’

Subsection (f£) or (h)

(2) If the jury, within a reasonable time is

able to agree as to sentence, the court shall dism

the jury and impose a sentence of imprisonment for

(3) If the sentencing proceeding is conducte

before a court without a jury, the court shall imp

the ntence determined under subsection (f) or (h

-6-

(1) Rules of procedure. -- The Court of Appeals

may adopt rules of procedure to govern the conduct of a

sentencing proceeding conducted pursuant to this

section, including any forms to be used by the court or

jury in making its written findings and determinations

of sentence.

(m) Alternate jurors. -- (1) A judge shall

appoint at least 2 alternate jurors when impaneling a

jury for any proceeding:

i) In which the defendant is being tri

crime for which the death penalty may be impo

(ii) Which is held under the provisions of this

(2) The alternate jurors shall be retained during

the length of the proceedings under such restrictions

and regulations as the judge may impose.

(3) (1) If any juror dies, becomes incapacitated,

or disqualified, or is discharged for any other reason

before the jury begins its deliberations on sentencing,

an alternate juror becomes a juror in the order in which

selected, and serves in all respects as those selected

on the regular trial panel.

(ii) An alternate juror may not replace a juro. whe

is discharged during the actual deliberations of the

; ilt mnocence of the defendant, or on

ury on the guilt

he issue of sente

Maryland Code (1957, 1982 Repl. Vol.), Art. 27, § 414:

§ 414. Automatic review of death sentences.

(a) Review by Court of Appeals required. --

Whenever the death penalty is imposed, and the judgment

becomes final, the court of Appeals shall review the

sentence on the record.

(b) Transmission of papers to Court of Appeals. --

The clerk of the trial court shall transmit to the Clerk

of the Court of Appeals the entire record and transcript

of the sentencing proceeding within ten days after

receipt of the transcript by the trial court. The clerk

also shall transmit the written findings and

determination of the court or jury and a report prepared

by the trial court. The report shall be in the form of

a standard questionnaire prepared and supplied by the

Court of Appeals of Maryland and shall include a

recommendation by the trial court as to whether or not

imposition of the sentence of death is justified in the

case.

(c.) Briefs and oral argument. <-- Both the State

and the defendant may submit briefs and present oral

argument within the time provided by the Court.

(d.) Consolidation of appeals. -- Any appeal from

the verdict shall be consolidated in the Court of

Appeals with the review of sentence.

(e.) Consideration by Court of Appeals. -- In

addition to the consideration of any errors properly

before the Court on appeal, the Court of Appeals shall

consider the imposition of the death sentence. With

regard to the sentence, the Court shall determine:

(1) Whether the sentence of death was imposed

under the influence of passion, prejudice, or any other

arbitrary factor;

(2 Whether the evidence supports the jury's or

court's findings of a statutory aggravating circumstance

under § 413 (d);

(3) Whether the evidence supports the jury's or

court's finding that the aggravating circumstances are

not outweighed by mitigating circumstances; and

(4) Whether the sentence of death is excessive or

disproportionate to the penalty imposed in similar

cases, considering both the crime and the defendant.

(€) Decision of Court of Appeals. <-- (1 In

addition to its review pursuant to any direct appeal,

with regard to the death sentence, the Court shall

(i) Affirm the sentence;

(ii) Set aside the sentence and remand the case for

he conduct of a new sentencing proceeding under § 413;

(iii) Set aside the sentence and remand for

modification of the sentence to imprisonment for life.

(2) The court shall include in its decision a

reference to the similar cases which it considered.

(g) Rules of procedure. -- The Court may adopt

rules of procedure to provide for the expedited review

of all death sentences pursuant to this section.

RULES INVOLVED

Maryland Rule 4-343:

Rule 4-343. SENTENCING -- PROCEDURE IN CAPITAL CASES

(a) Applicability. -- This Rule applies whenever

sentence is imposed under Colle, Article 27, Sec. 413.

(b) Statutory Sentencing Procedure. -- When a

defendant has been found guilty of murder in the first

degree and the State has given the notice required under

Code, Article 27, Sec. 412(b), a separate sentencing

proceeding shall be conducted as soon as practicable

after the trial pursuant to the provisions of the Code,

Article 27, § 413.

the judge who presides at trial shall preside at the

sentencing proceeding.

(d Allocution. -- Before sentence is

determined, the court shall afford the defendant the

opportunity, personally and through counsel, to make a

statement.

(e) Written Pindings and Determinations. -- The

findings and determinations shall be made in writing in

the following form:

Section I

Based upon the evidence, we unanimously find that

each of the following aggravating circumstances that is

marked “yes” has been proven BEYOND A REASONABLE

DOUBT. Each of the aggravating circumstances that h

not been so proven is marked “no.”

Re The victim was a law enforcement officer who

was murdered while in the performance of the officer's

duties.

Yes Wi

2 The defendant committed the murder at a time

when confined in a correctional institution

”

3 The defendant committed the murder in

furtherance of an escape from or an attempt to escape

from or evade the lawful custody, arrest, or detention

cer or guard of a correctional

of or by an offi

institution or by law enforcement officer.

4. The victim was taken or attempted ¢t be taken

in the course of a kidnapping or abduction or an attempt

t Kiagnap or abduct

S The victim was a child abducte Nn v lat

—— rg ae ae ham ©

é * ©, ATrTIcile Gig BCC. Se

ee a

6. The defendant comm tted the murder pursuant +

an agreement or contract for remunerat mn or the prom é

r remuneration t commit tne murder

- ~

7 The defendant engacaced r employed ther

De > Siakedied t t he murder and he murder = maker +

7 renan? ‘ an sreement , eontract for remiunera?> r

wd 4a . a aQ ec « = | °

> r ra ho ~ cé¢ . remunerati -

— .

r¢ ‘

8. At the time of the murder, the defendant wa

under the sentence of death or imprisonment for lif

vos =

y y

- The defendant committed more t} ne ffense

of murder mn the first degree arising t of the same

neiden

incid Be

Yes y

Ge The defendant committed the murder while

~ 7s ttine attempt na t ale tasks. - a bbery, ars ™ ra ‘

in the first degree or sexual offense in the first

degree.

(If one or more of the above are marked “yes,” complete

section II If all of the above are marked "no," do not

complete Sections II and III.)

Based upon the evidence, we unanimously find that

~ ,?7 4 ‘ nr = - na”

each of the following mitigating circumstances that

marked “yes” has been proven to exist by A PREPONDERANCE

a> Gan ry - a6 as ‘ x

F THE EVIDENCE. Each mitigating circumstance that

not been so proved is marked "no." -

: e ney

l. As used in this paragraph, “crime f vy lence

means abcuctions, arson, escape, kidnapping, mayhem,

murder, robbery, rape in the first or second decree,

sexual offense in the first or second decree,

ca } \- 2 ; un?) ry r a’ r

mansiaughter other than involuntary mansla ter, a

attempt to commit any of these offenses, or the use :

nandgun in the commission of a felony or another rime

of violence.

The defendant previously (i) has not been four

guilty of a crime of violence; and (ii has not entere

a plea of guilty or nolo contendere to a charge of

crime of violence; and (iii has not been granted

nr ha + nm On - ryt nreru af _ Aan n+ - a ; n+ >

probatio Stay fe y of judgme . vant ¢t

sharge f Crime f vy lence.

Yes N

5 Th ,ir ac nar ;einar in he

oe rne victim was a participant in the

Je fendant' condu > . C nsented t the act wh =" Ca

the y —“ftimte dea

Yes y

3. The defendant acted under substantial duress,

ry provocation of another person, but not s

constitute a complete defense to the

- eior

} € 4 .

Vec \)

é The mu rde wa mmitted while the capac ‘

> _ ~ + > }

conduct or to conform his c nduct to the requirements of

law was substantitally impaired as a result of mental

incapacity, mental disorder, or emotional disturbance.

Yes Nc

c sae . ? +h eC ’ b

5 The defendant was of a youthful age at the

time of the crime.

’ N

6. The act of the defendant was not the sole«

proximate cause of the victim's death

Voc . "|

uP It is unlikel that the defendant will engags

n further crimina activit that wou constitute a

ntinuing threat t societ

Voc ——_

8 Other facts specificall et fort elow

~ tute loa t Jat - circum tar ec

Ye N

‘ ‘ :| necessary

+ 3° ve ~" Secr c TT have hoon marke

. oo > 7,7 T a 3 4 ~ & +he ahr e - Cor +

all fF the at i ‘

= e - > =~ me ere ‘oh an tels TY T

C pi te Section III

Section III

evidence, we un at it has

PREPONDERANCE t the

mstances marked I utweigh

sumstances marked I

DETERMINATION OF SENTENCE

‘ Jetermination of sentence either €¢

= me -* r "Death" acc rding t the f wir

were

l If all

"Life Impri

2. If Sect

"Life Impri

3 If Sect

marked “no”

4. If Sect

"Death."

usly determ

of the a

sonment.”

ion III

sonment

ion I

reman

<->

r r

i a

~ x

’ r 2

r = r

. =

nswers

was completed

”

as comp

er "Dea

was com

Advice of the Judge.

e shall

time al

shall a

th tha

ally by

advise

lowed f

lso adv

(1) the

the Co

stayed pending

ais

°o

and

f Judge

chal]

auwinha a

w i“ s

REPORT

. De fen

any app

prepare

orm:

-APTION

leted and all of the answers

pleted and was marked "no"

e t be

: ae oo

Turor 9

oe At +he time ~ = mr -

the defendant of the rig

or the exercise of this

ise a defendant who receive

sentence only will be

urt of Appeals, and (2) t?

a review of the sentence ¢

eal which the defendant ma

After sentence is imposec,

and send to the partie 3

and was marked

I are marked

yes

. Sex

o ~mmoow

ie?

a |

)

. Reputation in Community

ly Situation and Background

1. Situation at time of offense (describe

n a

defendant's living situation including marital

status and number and age of children

2 Family history (describe family history

including pertinent data about parents and

siblings

H Education

I Work Record

J Prior Criminal Record and Institutional Hist

( st any privsr convictions, Jisy t n, an period f

ncarcerati

k Military Histor

L. Pertinent Physical or Mental Characteristics t

4 st r :

M. Other Significant Data At t Defendant

I! Data Concerning Offense

ry Briefly describe facts of offense (include time,

place, and manner of death; weapon, if any; ther

participants anc nature of participation

B. Was there any evidence that the defendant wa inde:

the influence of alcohol or drugs at the time of t

f fense If so, describe.

, Did the defendant know the victim pr _ the

€ffoence”

ye N

If so, describe relationshiy

2 Did the pr r relations! W pre tat

the offense? If so, explair

c Did the victim's behavi r na - pr ke ¢t

ffense If so, explain.

E Data Concerning Victim

l. Name

2. Date of Birtt

3 Sex

4. Race

5S. Lenath of time in communit

6. Reputation in communit

F Any Other Significant Data About Of f« é

Ezz. & Plea Entered By Defendant

Not guilty ; guilty ; not g t t ea :

insanity ;

m Mode of Trial

~ yy * 7 ¥

U u!

If there was a jury trial, did defendant eng

the ur select n or my t Tf ,» e©xX

“on

7 2ee

o® ®

Name

Address

Appointed or retained (If more than

attorney represented defendant,

and include stage of proceeding at

representation was furnished.)

Pre-Trial Publicity -- Did defendant reques

mistrial or a change of venue on the basis

publicity? If so, explain. Attach copies

motion made and exhibits filed.

Was defendant charged with other offenses

of the same incident? If sc

ate whether they were tried at same pr

give disposition.

erning Sentencing Proceeding

aggravating circumstance(s upon w

ed in the pretrial notice.

the proceeding conducted before sam

] before same jury

sentencing proceeding was conducted ¢t

han the trial jury, did the defendant

ection or composition of the jury I

ounsel -- If counsel at sentencing was

trial counsel, give information re

C above

h aggravating and mitigating circum

ed by the evidence?

hich aggravating and mitigating cir

the jur instructed?

tence mposé Lite img nm t

. De **

ation of intention to seek penalt f

ilt/innocence) -- began and ended

rial Motions Disposed Of

cing Proceeding -- began and ended

imposed

endation of Trial Court as to Whether

tence of Death is Justified

py of the Findings and Sentencing C

is case 1 attached t an made a

provide

CERTIFI

7 ce ,€ > ne +h a ‘ | 7 -

I certify that the day of » a9 I sent

at at ae Ttt.t } rc _ ¥ om @ e oe cr en oo nn

copies of this report to counsel for the parties for comment a

have attached any mment made by them to this report.

a “ | eisaaszeaaaaaaaaaaa

JUDGE

Within five days after receipt f the report, the parti¢

may submit to the judge written comment concerning the factual!

accuracy of the report. The udge promptly shall file with tne

lerk f the trial court, and in the cas¢ f a life sentence wit

tho C6 .Y € +b o + ‘ rr » 7 he rer r+ — fina? farm

‘ € € ” I € IT Appeai t l ] al I I P

noting ar changes made, together wit ar somments f the

580 Md $06 ATLANTIC REPORTER, 24 SERIES

in county where murder Bas comr .

Anthony GRANDISON , though alleged acy of const Ts sob

place in other count)

STATE of Maryland 2. Criminal Law © 14 |

Nos. 65 & 108, Sept. Term. 1984 Defendant, who wa argec *

Court of Appeals of Maryland

jection & venur of murder count Dy fa

‘ "

Aon } ) Qe 7 at tris

3. Conapiracs &4

Defendant was convitec f firsid

Conspirator »

gree murder, conspiracy & mr murocr P .

¢ ‘ ar nature 4

and use of handgun in commission of cmme 2 . P .

le ‘ -

f violence by We Ur Court. Somer:

ie - , a

Lounty J L vad Simpkin and he a

a? yh P ever r 7 r "

peaiec The Court f Appea A r

are cone pursua be

held that. (1) conspiracy charge Was pr

purpose ra

erly venued in county where murders were

ommitted (2 murder and hancgur 4. Criminal Las & 59

~harges were propery yrenuec r “ a

where murders were comr ugh ce as rl

‘ _. . >

fendant was guilty urde sole f~ t . " n

virtue of having entered inl conspira act. a

ther county. (3) dema! of defendants re nals

juest for further removal, Dasec On exter

sive publicity surrounding case. was ©

. i‘irimina | * «

abuse of discret mn where case ha pre ’ ns

Mur “

yusly been removed fron u wher :

or r ¢ “

murders were mmittec 4) refusal wu , .

defendar reque ndividua . ve .

- ar

= 6 Cnr 4 a» ‘

ara

t “

eice

severa f

Ua 1

he re Py

a: xing

eff«

w a

2: (onspirac’ > 46

ar er a

e WwW sé ; - ar

au na prux .

®& Criminal Law ¢

/* 4

“ ‘

r as

3ERIES

here murder was committed

zed acta of conspiracy Urn

r count)

Lae @145

t who was charged with cor

urder and murder, waived ob

we of murder count by fail

y &i!

lor iS responsiblt for logica

ronsequences of acts comn

conspirators even tor hor

4 outside of b presence @

er contemplatec wher @

irsuance of common desig .

mspiracy

Las 595

er ura’ 4 .

ralor m con

y ulpable with perpetra

Dability exle

and Wwica e

ae 110

r agains def -

5 mn o where -

sgh Getendgar “a a

. ,

ae 6? j

exer

r Gefenda

_ grat Z y >

>| ‘ nag ’

Jelenda aga

‘ ar eff

t consp rawr ‘ r

re eariyv relevant af al

< pirac

ay —) walle

re allege

; € ha a

ry ste severance * .

ale atur

GRANDISON +. STATE Md

Crus 00 906 A.2d 500 (hid 1988)

9. Criminal Law 12)

Tra! court's order transfernng entre

prosecuuon w other county based on fatt

that some of counts were pun hable by

death, was not abus yf discretion Ma

Rule 744

10. Criminal Law 26

Time withir which dt fendant could eT

ter if nit t n r f +}

ul J pia @ alv re “a

extended “wher will bod er pr

ceding defends attempted entr ‘

‘ I F "

tria ourt rule ” , j and for

parucular , her pat- ° ring

a c ’ r — as i

a piea Mat «

11. Criminal Las on6. 1249

7 0 |

ria . rina ’

cr“ “ e

‘ ‘4 r |

m ) erur at

: j re wher

r . “ sad ra . 4

ngt Md Rul 2

12. Criminal Law ¢ 64)

ere " na rig

4 }t ’

13. Criminal! La» 44

‘

14. Criminal Las @&-™

T ‘ > r >

VDetenca “ : ec

2 rn mor ¢ acre ' { ,

\a ; ul hereatter re ¢

‘ nr i “a y e@xar J + a a

ne - be preser “a ¥ ive

relu c A suodrr w exar a

hat ne r ater ooje hat ne wa

r give sul t opportur d€

rau go au neevde for

erur pit Vid Rules *

1s Criminal Las o5-+.10"

\" ‘ ,

581

tris! within 180 days after earlher of afr

pearance of defense counsel or first ap

pearance of defendant, only addre ascd

ation where case was set and ultima

tned in single circuit court and did

apply when case wa removed or def

ant's request other county

16. Criminal Las © 577.9

al case. © a mot re

4, 4 4 requ shar

7 - oO for tr with ™ |

me a s receive r ‘

Va f ~ 4 Cod Py art

iT Criminal Law @&> »

r 3 a “i as t* r

wa re uu her

, with wi) ac { ‘

° P rece r

wa}

’ - =

, ’ requimng th3 2 "|

. . 4 f -

“ afte ¢

4 - v's jete .

- 2 4.fenda

in Criminal Law &!--

é r a ase allege x le

7 y mur pr

- ° -

6 Crmina La‘ ee

- , he gt nal t

aiece Priv et r curr

edce NPOSe was f al

- wher jefenda had r —

r relU e af wher corm rece

a aamor r agai’ ext ire

Vd R € $ e 4

ode ouru and Judicia Procet

» ]

0. Criminal Law & eo

4 { defenda re é r

< ¢ of new ry. Das allies

ae ror “ 3

4 asa & t I ’

enc

582 Md

cured by tna! court's mdividua) questuoning

of jurors

21. Jury € 131113)

Denial of defendant's request two ind:

viduaily jurors, aboul potenua

prejudice fron ity verdict

against coconspirator in neighbonng coun

tv. was not abuse of discretior

vou dire

resulung

where tna

ror fh

court had previously instructed jw

us expose Ulemselves to media pul

and where tna! court questioned jurors er

masse as & whether they had heard any

th ng alw ut utcorn of coc Nepira ,

Appellate court shou De Siow to In

pule & me a diregarc { their d ¢

anc w tna rus @ War f dilige ' r

perspicacity im appraising jur ndu

23. Jury 104

Juror: were proper excluded for

cause where eacl expressed some he

lation abou mposing Geath penalty wu

murder prosec . and where after

painslaxing anc thorougniy examining

r r ria uri r ude 5 Wa ur rn

er r sut Lanta mpair perf rma ‘ f

their dutie

’

24. Jury & lf .

Kef - - | ‘

Fet a - r r

b } -

) ry ~ , iene

cau a U r ave lu if

and as fendarnt sed ir ner

anc 0 Getenda S alege nv eme \

drug trafficking. was not abuse of discre

tion, thoug?t bewng

cuted for murder and not drug traffickir

defendant was prose

where jurors indicated that they »

make Gecisior. based on evidence and law

25. Homicide €°334(1

In murder prosecution. allowing v

ums wife to tecufy about her relavionshir

with husband war at harmle error

gover. overwheiming e ence defer

. gvilt

4 gv

26. Criminal Law ©4381), 1153) 1

Adr ™ 7 oP . .

806 ATLANTIC REPORTER, 24 SERIES

court, whose determination wil! not be d

turbed unless plainly arbitrary

77. Criminal Law € 4385) 4

In murder prosecution. tna! court

cision w admit photographs of victirr *u

not abuse of discretion. where phowyra)

were mere graphic representations of ur

+ vid

disputed fa \ alread evicer

2%. Criminal Law C10123

for ubyect party objecting will be b

those grour 2 - rdinar

dons eae, te yr

fied

29. Criminal Law ©1043

Defendar failed preserve ¢

Ww reicvancy | erla ri T -

r ‘ raise 4 r ¥u

hearta nature f ll

30. Conspiracy 4

In prosecution for pit

Ger. @stuumony of weun wile tha 7

spiralor acted in manner suppor

fendar wo fr ghte nerse 2

from testifying at pnor pr

fenda va re evar “

31. Criminal Law 404: 2

k “wat adr ~~ “

re £ _ { na a . -

ga nice

ahere Weal- exter

“a * * * .

where BW LNe suf nal sr na

32. Criminal Law 43

Display of enlarged letter u —

not have prejudicial effect of overer

ing single piece of evidence. where enlar;

ment was exact copy of omgina!l. and w!

eniargement Was emmy ec Ww Gemor r

33. Cominal Law 1

_RIES GRANDISON +. STATE Md 583

Cite as 506 ADd SOD (Md 1986)

determination will not be dis of coconspirator are admissible as excep 40. Criminal Law €=666'/;

}

plainly arbitrary ion Ww hearsay rule, as long as conspiracy Tral court's decision, refusing w allow

Law @4305) is established at some time during tna! defendant's request for direct. pretna! ex

amination of coconspirator. was not abu

of discretion, where both defendant ar

coconspirator were in custody and cor

calls with conspirators provided ample indé sidered extremely dangerous, where dé

pendent evidence of existence of conspir

prosecution. tna! court's ds 34. Criminal Laws @ 4727/5)

photographs of victuums wa

Defendant's letter, visit. and phone

mscretion. where pholoyray)!

aphic representations of ur

fendant had ample opportunity, pnor to b

already m eviden | Pr 5

4 that in proseculor for conspira request, & ascertain tenor of coconsp:r

ae C1019 ind murder. declaratior f defendant , tor lestimor and wher tma! cour

fw grounds are delines rator were adn t as except io while not allowing defendant to participa

ePly Objectling w ta Pe euros rule mn mlerview. did allow interview Ww be c

and w ordinariis ducted through defendar wand

4 , 45. Homicide 166: 4

t Waived gr ! r . ‘

Ev ide het defends had bes

} 1. Cnminal « 1036.2

hary: with other cnmes was adr : 4 n al La 1

- ~~ = P . ; » . " .

A 104313 mn ppenetunion tee Gane of titnemnes wt Defendant failed Ww preserve e*

f a } ‘ ’ ne tk .

tae \&) preserve - i have testified at poor enmina! pr Oo tna ourt s ru Nn 4 ra

7 ,

rt ‘ er fae a , te

Corts “ “ ‘ R how th Jefendant had nr were called as w e é jet ‘

raised at ur * — 4 sla “ 1 te a “Me t r #3

, ‘

le r . hirr r 4ifurd plea. where defe

e 16 Criminal Law i192 made no proffer of wha f rs

c&j5 ,

for r r l mur r pr A e “ r e

' , a a r

f ‘ fficer that vicun would hare ide

etim 's , ; 3 —

wieu wile tha - $2. Criminal Law 539: 1

: tified defendant as party t nrelated of

mar Fr sun ‘ 34 Da | 4

anne Upportive T be adn ble a ster roceeding

: . P " ’ nadmuissible hearsa wher

gn herself ano \ - former te mor mu Nave ¢ give

’ ex.(\fa >| aleme wer

a: prior prose “ ¢ inger oath. al proces £ ‘

" " ‘ boi emmatt? >

P nt n 7 ‘ ‘ ‘ u F ; ma

‘se Ww Snow OS la a ne sSarme 4 a J

how th Jefe ant } _——

ase @ 4042 . proceeding tnere mu na as res

= .

dey " ; a

3 t a ¥ alm r =

hat alleged } (Criminal! Law 116¢.2'] :

> defe , . -

ar le Te “ " .

“eam | r i ; as - .

f . 7 = a a .

£ Tie tha she ha fend “wacr reversible error

give similar weap 43. Criminal Law @=544. 54

. . eu}

38 Criminal Law ©666'A. 1153/1 - P ,

na r ré “ t adr + r

C cpeumctar nder which defenda: ; ‘ :

a 133 4 =i € ) 4 4 sa gra’ um te rr . 2

r Ju pretr nuernie. I pr = roinct tat not fa ret

arged letter u urors d 7 , = . , aga Olav Wa I abuse Gis e

“ e witne are matters Dest ieIt Wl Wia . — . . 4 7 ear

al effect of overempha . as lest y wa Hlained dumng 4

r ; retior nd t —

J Giscretio ano Una: court § deci 7 . =~ f ie@atineg he

f evidence. where er arge ¢ exploratory phase oF invesuga “

> A } f P thar

“ be reversed only for abuse of tha ¢ ate not ¢f nared

“Op of ongina and where federa’ attorneys were prepared

3 re r 4 '

*| t . . - “onst tor ; -

emploved to demonstrat« i cross<@xamine Cox spiral a a Ld ‘es

; f —T, - °

‘ne< 7 ob was me party to ledera! gra U

ne cr is 3 . P p

39. Criminal Laws €666'4

@ authored. draft ar a ceeding

ima! judge may place limitations anc

ar ©

restr r Nn party's access to potentia 44. Criminal Law 54!

es Si 47713 wine 4 urt s discretion such resur Mid Rule 4 subdc Nf. par ) re.a

my r are reasonat necessary for prote ng w adr t and substar J

- re . ¥witnes r for ecur purpose Je ix at wna >| n apt 4

584 Md 606 ATLANTIC REPORTER, 24 SERIES

not serve ax basis for admission of tran

script of declarant’s federal grand jury te:

tuumon)

45. Criminal! Law @°594(3)

Tria! court's decision, not & allow cor

tunuance so thai defendant could attempt lo

secure presence of rebuttal witness, was

net abuse of discrevior where witness

presence coulic nol be guaranteed Dy Ge

fendant. and where 2s was Otherw

ready for tna

46. Criminal Law @700

In murder prosecution, defendant wa

not entitled, pmor wu being sentler

death. to stauistics as & frequer “

which state sought death penalty for de

fendants charged with murder

47. Homicide 354

Fact that defendant ha red

individual to commit Murder Was agrress

ing circumstance wi r mn murder pr

uor just fied im positior if deat pena

Code 1957, Art. 27. § 4

48. Homicide 354

Death pena!t which was imposec a!

ter defendant was convicted of ntracting

for murder of state witne

vestif aga r é r

croceed:ng. 7 ‘

Du 4 .

nour? defe 4 4 re

conviction for rime f ence. @

thoug? he Was Tf 1s ' pr ximale cause

killing

49. Criminal Law 641.415

Sentencing was not separate proceed

ing from crimina] tnal. such thal defend

ant. who had knowingly and wmteligent

waived right w counse! at tna yu

thereafter insist that attorney handle fh

sentencing US.C.A. ConstAmenc ¢

56. Criminal Lae 641.711

Md Rule 723. which mandates that tna

court readvise defendant of mgt

sel at every separate proceecing a r

reouire reacvisement “here jete na

affirmauvely waived nght wo counse

5}. Constitutional Law 295

Homicide 351

Amendment to Code 1957, Am 4

§ 124, allownng court to consider evider

of impact of murder on victim's family and

not just on vicum as part of sentencing

decision. did not change quantum of pur

ishment attaching to crime of murdcr

that it did not constitute ea post facto law

LSC A Cor An Lh

uon of Rights. Am 14

52. Homicide 354

r rr -

nvicle ra . 5

“ou have to fu r '

n a hough r ece r a

r Tr gating r nm a s

Art Zz & 4 ra

F 4 s* defe 3 ”

£ p ner ar a

r Ging e e e the lance “

found mow! fF a ated &

fendar Cc r fia

anc Geta ¢ reiau r

suct a “ be near ‘ dé

pena 4 ahere n harge aga

ele wes ase » ‘ “

“A a a r ‘

4 »

54. Conspiracy 2s

(< ra f mur re re

parties agree to con n 3

IT urder = su . f :

55. Homicide &7

Murder, regardies f whethe

convictec as accessor r on

quires completed hor

56. Criminal Law 729

mmes f murder anc nspura

mfr murcer w e separav

< that dJefenda - . “ -

s i abe is r

4-6 ase ‘ + 2

sory be re fa

RIES

nal Law 207

351

t t& Code 1957. An 41

court & consider evidencs

arder on vicurm's family and

‘um as part of sentencing

change quantum of pur

ng to cmme of murder. s

mstitule @r paost fact a

Ar &% Canst [he ir

‘ oa « death um

le ‘ ra i ‘

+ t f rr [

ugh n r r la

CciIrcumSLa A ;

>166: 4

4 jefenda Na bee

F her ar

e Wa substance “ue

room associated with de

co ule nflammator

ence .of unrelated cnme

Oe aan . r deat

ased on k ng fw ‘

4 nave { als ,

( ae

r ré r

urce ar 4

J é

f ahether é

r r pa r

a ra A

GRANDISON +. STATE Md 585

Cie as 988 4.34 908 (hd = 1OR8)

when hired killer mistakingly killed wrong

pan

57. Criminal Law ©1035)

Defendant. who never requested that

juror be removed for miaconduct, could nf

argue on appeal that tna! judge should

have removed juror sua sponte

58. Criminal Law 10359)

Defendant, who at no time objected &

trial court's statement, as part of evidentia

ry ruling, that there was evidence to su;

port conspiracy could not raise coun

comment as ground for reversa! of con

uon where tna! judge had already advise

jury Uvat his lega) ruisr shouic fr

taken W indcicay

59. Criminal Law 113711

Defendar wh acquiesce n tna

uri Ge f wa “ fur D rele

hmer rece r

r r urge de n as a grou

reversa

69. Homicide 354

ra Wie defendar nad murdere

re War € party cor ule ig yra\a

rcum<ctar hich sified in

z u =“ a! U €

{ death penalty for b rder

61. Homicide @ 234

efenda f mur

> a | ‘ re é r r

‘a4 u ore aah

rator def. bir .

a (

mr murder. as well a ale

f other witnesses showing that defendar

hac talked with conspirators on var

ycasions Code 1957, Art 27, § 413id®"

62. Criminal Law 795

No mstrucuion on effect of deadio

was required where jury. in prosecutor

murder which extended over many da

reached verdict Ww one anc one quar

63. Homicide © 17

Defendant. who contractec »

party for murder of state witne

wraile ¢ mur

reialec prosecu was FV

cur f Ta ferre ‘

64. Homicide 354

Imposition of death penalty was aul!

nzed, though defendant was guilty of mur

der only ax accessory and not as pmncipa

in first degree, where defendant had en

ploved another person to commit murder

Code 1957. Art 27. § 4)3idW7), tex

Ne L Cook. A gne Py Ly

er Washing [ for appella

leterah K Chasanow A 4

ul e mh Sach A r

Balu re. fur appe''t

rgued before MURPH ,

MITH ELDRIDGE = =}

H and McA rre

( CH, Judge

T apjt ie 4 r

was cl.arged in Baltimore ( -

spirac. tw murcer > a ner r

r { .~< degre am urd a ~*~ >

now 3 “usan -& ‘ a

handzun in the comr acr

, rand ha F > ,

£ ar he sut 7 é

- 4 -

4 a

gr | ‘re r 4 a

r P gr ° -

error we shal) affurn

With respect to the under g fa §

“@s w We narge aga Uranc

we recently recited ther in Eren <

104 Ma 487, 494-95, 499 A 2d 126 2t

65 (1985), and therefore shal! borrow fr

thal recitavon as follows

According lo Whe Sule evrde

defendant Evans and Anu Te

eniered into an agreeme where E

ans would kill David Scott Piechow

a wife. Cher ywecau U

were scheduled ‘ aga rs

ry ar , . "

z *vVa . r 2

686 Md

trict of Maryland) Evans was to receive

$9,000.00 from Grandson for performing

the murders

David Scott Piechowiez and Chery! Pie

chowiz were employed at the Warren

House Mote! in Baltimore County. On

April 2%, 1983, Susan Kennedy, the sister

of Chery! Piechowiez

place of Chery! at the

Mot The

prove beyond a reasonable doubt that, or

2kth

was working uv

Hous

sufficent &

Warrer

evicence was

Apn Evans went to the mote! and

not knowing the Prechowrezs. shot I

Scott Piechowiez and Susan Kenne

with a MAC-11 machine pisu Nine

teen bullets were fired at the weur

who died from multiple gunshot wound

A ww count indictment was file

against Evans and Grandison w

ed States Court

charged with wolating the

i ci

Ure

They

Prechowxz

District were

mghts by interfenng with ther ng!

to be witmesses in & judicia! proceeding

in violauvon of 18 US<

witness

usC

§ 241, and mu

tampenng. i

§ 1512

Subsequently the present case bega

with a four count indictment in the

cuit Court for Balumore County charg

+ Ura

nas

ing Evar

counts of first degree mu

a handgun in the comr

felony or cmme of nolence

defendants’ requests for remova!, Gray

dison's trial was the Cur

cuit Court for Somerset County and Ey

Upon the

transferred &

ans 6 tra’ was transferred to the Circu

Court for Worcester County

Prior to the tral im the imstant case

Grandison and Evans were convicted on the

federa) charges and sentenced to life

ten years They

pretna

impmsonment then file

mouons W disrmuss We charges

thew respechbve state cases on double jeoy

ardy grounds The motor

Lhe

wa! jucges

06 ATLANTIC REPORTER, 24 SERIES

(1985)

Thereafter, the trial proceeded m Sorne

set County and Grandison was found gu

of all charges. SubsequenUy, a sentencing

proceeding was held pursuant tw Maryland

Code, Art 27, § 413, wherein the jury in

105 S.Ct 1411, & LEd 2d 79

posed death penalties for the two mu

convicuons he Ura! judge Biso senu

Urandis nw hfe IMpms« nmer for t

spiracy conviclion and twer vears f

handg violauon consecutive u

sentence These senu we mi.

lo run conse we o th

years Sse s e pre T) Ix

federa! ca:

We shall now addre he! a

me urn) & rt ‘

Fa:lure nguire im Mer ’

Siete Witness Sparro.

prandis complains Wat hus cor

Dona’ mgr f witness confrontabon a

cross<2aminabon Was impairec by We Ura

court's refusa) to permit appropnate stu

wo be taken W dGelermine Wie mental cane

ty ar vera \ f Slave § Wilwes Nar

“parros vert Evar ransec UV

u ra u r Our

¥ orcest . "

v 4° ye 499 A 2 2 ri n

slavec peruner pe

*] 2

med examnad should be gracv

nowever = trial jucge shouic care

aia he Gemrmonstratec nece f

compevec eXaminavon agains! We ex

ence unportant countlervaiuLs

erabons. In affirming We dena

mobon for a psychiatne examunad

government w

our Appeals for the Distic

umDu rcu . he wv 4c » 4 e 5

476 F 2d 4) 3 T r 1% 2 ‘

some f the factors w be «x ~~

RIES

S.Cu. 1411, 8 LEd 2d 795

he trial proceeded nn Somer

Grandison was found guilt)

Subsequently, ® sentencing

held pursuant to Maryland

§ 413, wherein the jury in

nalues for the two murder

c tial judge also sentence

e impmsonment for the cor

yn and twenty years for

on consecutive to Une

e sentences were ims

tively to the life

4 A

aire tnto Mental Capacity

e Witness Sparrow

mplains that hus consu

witness confrontavon ar

ym was impaired by the tna

w permit approprate step:

etermine the menta! capa

f State’s witness Charlene

n Evans raised the same

in the Circuit Court f

In Evans v. State, 304

A 2d 1261, 1272 11950) *

pot part

g whether @ requt for a

nation should be grante

wal judge shoule carefi

monstrated necess:t) for 4

minavon against the ex:

tant countervauing

affirming the dema

sychuatre exampavor

uness, the United Stale

als for the Disurxct of Co

in United States t. Bent

1131 (D.C.Cw.1972), lste

factors to be considerec

unc exarminabon may ser

ze on & witness men

that ad

GRANDISON +. STATE Md 587

Cows os 908 424 Se (ed -_

role of complamant is sharply

creased by the indignity of 8 peychial

ne examination, the examinavon itself

could serve as & wool of harassment

and the impact of al) these considera

uons may well deter the vicum of a

crime from lodging any complaint at

all Since there is no exact measure

for weighing these- kinds of danger

against the need for an examine

the de mn must be entrust

sound yscrelior if the we udég

g? of the particular facts

Accord. United State Butle 4°

F2 DC Cw 197 Sec Ra

State 7 Md App $64. 571-572. 206 AS

543 (1969), cert denied, 40 S & 9

SC. 70. 27 L.Ed.2d 67 (197

an ws disposilve f the ws ’ Hence he

tra! court 4 r eomir reversible error

Venu?

Grands nex argue that We nc

ments handed down Ww La lumore Ou

srandison was indicted oF gune o 19s.

Balumore Counts he war ullmave

tned and convictec WF Somerset \&

rsua w DP uggee for re a vu

r former Mar Rule 74 T a

wlan! argue a’ since he @ com

ted constituting Whe cmme of acce r

before the fact to murder, conspirec) and

unlawful use of a handgun in commussior

of a crime of violence indisputad!) occurred

in Baluumore City, he was wrongtu ur

dicted and prosecuted Balumore Cou

Pror to tna!l, Grandson moved to dis

11) of the

miss the conspiracy count (Count Nl) «

indictment on the ground that the Grand

Jury for Balumore County lacked jums

1 Former Md Rule 744 provieece

4 CLapruie Case

hen a defencan' '5 hargee with ar Hens

whch the maurpum pena’ death anc

Dp cs a suggestion ul der oath tba: 0 a

wie aca anc impale “ "

tion. At the February 77 1984 hearing. he

amended his movon dismiss & alieg

improper venue Judge Simpkine dene

the motion. relying oF Luevers v Slate

MdApp 597. 241 A 2d 147 (196) ar

. - _ .

Greenwald v State, 2¢! Md 245.15 Ae

119. appeal dismissed 362 US 721. *

Sc a4 4 LEd.2d 1521 09% Wer

tha vc Sor xrns romrr tLec nr error

Ger [ rand mot 1 5 T

, 7v Pol ha

= enter a ega! apreeme

Py gc r ey

uu arr r r ‘ Dia a

ther — ' r formher P

{rere a € a J ey

hey agreemer eact f the ralor

may be uned in e e

a expre renee heir agree™

nee n be esa © prose A

conspirators Wf t he y wher ‘

act wa mmittec Green 221 M

- 4 ‘ l-

at 24 Alicea 24 ,) ¢

p Wether (N.Y.), 4 Wendall <5. @. -

Amer De Ze 4

The underlying ravona for pr

ple lies un what has be er

unulng na ure of Cc st ra er -

The las c sicerm a.* re J

spirator a ere re .

. ) ‘ agree? . act

vr ° n .

whe a - .

. , o ob

“Ts e i‘

wold. 221 Md. at co a

. ?

in Luerers the (our (« - <a

recognize the rule a

be prosecuted “where egs. acre

arose ahere |U |

ance of the agreeme curt

Md Ag at & <4 4208

Chef Judge Mor ar :

Lour >pecia Appes Bo

n wt he as “

c ha he came & ans e

an ° nm having i 4 PY,

¢ a defencar we ai

2 & sugee

. e oat? e

“nr —-

588 Md

State, 6 Md.App. 623, 262 A.2d 290 (1969)

applied the holding of Laevers. In Boddu

the appellants were @ the State of Mary

land when the overt act in furtherance of

the conspiracy to rob occurred. However

the illega! agreement mm that case seeming

ty took place outside of the territona! Lmits

of the state. Nonetheless, the court held if

the evidence could sustain a finding that a

conspiracy existed, the conspirators could

be punished in Maryland Boddie. 6 Md

App at 529. 252 A2d at 293. The rule uw

m sceord with. and indeed follows from

decisions rendered by the Supreme Court

In Hyde v. United States, 25 US Mi. 32

SC. 793, 56 LEd 1114 (1912), the Coun

was considering whether venue wm a cor

spiracy case under § 5440 Rev Stat (190)

properly hes in the state or distrnct where

Uhe conspiracy was entered inw or ar

State or district where an overt act in fur

therance of the conspiracy was performed

In its analysis, the Court stated “thal a

conspiracy iS not necessanly the concepuor

and purpose of the moment, but may h&

conunuing Id. at 363, 32 S.Ct at 800, &

LEd at 1124

conspirators act there they “renes. or per

haps. to speak more properly, Wey conor

ue, they agreement. and Us agreement u

Moreover. wherever Ue

renewed or continued as to al) whenever

any one of them does an act wm furtherar

of they common desig ld at & .

SCr. at 801, 56 LEd@ at 1125 tquoung

Rotinson v. United States, 172 Fed. 10

(8th Cir.1909)); accord United States 1

Kissel, 218 U.S. 601, 608, 3) S.Cu 124, 126

54 L.Ed. 1168 (U.S.N.Y. 1910); see United

States v. Mayo, 721 F.2d 1084. 1080 (Vu

2 ht is clear from the wanuript of February 2°

1984 that Grandison soughi only to dismins

Count Il] (conspiracy) of the wdiciment o0 Ue

basis Uval venue was umprope:

5. Marviand Rule 885 prowdes

“Rule 685 Scope 6f Rewew—Limiiad 0 Ques

mons Decdaed by Circ! Court

Thus Court wil) aot ordinarily decide any

pon! or question wtuch does oo! plainly ap

pear by ue record to have been wed and

decided by the carcuit coum but when a pou

or question of law had been presenied Une

606 ATLANTIC REPORTER, t¢ SERIES

Cir.1983), see generally 1 F Wharton

Criminal Lew § 14 (14th ed. 1978)

We note that, though the Count m Hyd

was analyzing @ statute which required a!

legation and proof of an overt act. it st!

accepted the charactenzation of a conspir

acy as “continuing” and “ongoing” See

Mayo, 721 F.2d at 1090. Such s character

wabon convinces us that the rule expressed

in Lievers and applied in Boddic & sound

Accordingly, appellant's argument m

fail. Since the murders occurred in Ba

more County and were a contemplated re

sult of an ongoing, continuing scheme

which appellant was coauthor, venue for

the conspiracy count was proper in Ba

more County

Grandson next attempts Ww specifica

challenge venue for the murder and har

gun counts as being improperly set ir. Ba

more County He argues that since he wa

indicted and prosecuted outside the count

in which the acts he committed occurred

Balumors t the indictment charming

him as an accessory before the fact

murder a f a handgun volation should

have been dismissed

12) The short answer & apre!ar

venuor | hat venue for e W.lrde’ &

handgur counts Was never Ccha.«nge

the tna! court.*? Thus. wt argument 4a

waived Md Rule 885.? McBurney

State, 20 Md. 21, 32-33. 371 A.2d 129

135-36 (1977)

However, considering the nature of —«

proceedings before us, we entertain app

court and a decision of thal poi! or quest

of law by thus Court is necessary oF Gewradic

for the guidance of the ciurcwi court. oF

avord the expense and delay of anouner appes

to this Court, the point or quesion of law ma

be decnded by this Court even though it was

not decided by the circwt court Wher

dicvion cannot be conferred on Uys Court b

waiver or consent of the parties 4 question a

to the pumadiction of the circun cour may

raned and decided in us Cour ehethe

not ransed and decided in the cir oun

¢ generally 1 F. Wharton,

w § 14 (4th ed. 1978)

at, though the Court in Mydr

+ @ statute which required a)

proof of an overt act, it stl!

charactenzation of a conspir

nuing” and “ongoing.” See

‘d at 1090. Such a character

ces us that the rule expressed

i applied in Boddic w sound

appellant's argument mu*'

e murders occurred in Balt

and were a contemplated re

going, conUnuing scheme of

was coauthor venue fur

count was proper in Balt

(B)

ext attempu: w specifica

ye for the murder and har

being improperly set in Ba!

He argues that since he ¥a

rosecuted outside the count

acts he’ committed occurred

y. the indictment charpne

cessory before the fact u

a handgun violation shou'c

nissed

wl answer Wo appellant sc

venue for the murder ar

us was never challengec

Thus. this argumer.

Rule 885.2 McBurney

21. 32-33. 37) A.2ad

eG i«

nsidering the nature of Ux

fore us, we entertain appt

jecision of thal point or ques!

s Court is necessary or desrabic

ance of the circuit court, or \

ense and delay of another appes

the point or question of law may

y this Court even though it was

w the carcwit coun When jurs

t be conferred on this Cour >

vem of the partes. @ question a)

cuen of the crrcuit court may be

ecided on this Court. whether or

i decided in the circull coun

GRANDIBON +. STATE Md 589

Cire we 808 Ad 8 (ea ee

lant's argument but are compelled to sum

marily dismiss & as being without ment

{3) It wa generally recognized principle

that where the exittence of a conspiracy &+

established, the law imposes upon & con

spirator full responsibility for the logical!

and natural consequences of acta commit

ted by bis fellow conspirators if such acts

are done in pursuance of the common de

cign or purpose of the conspiracy See

is Wenzel. 31) F 2d 164 (4th Cir 1962)

l ‘rerio State 272 Md 607, 63) 32°

A 2d Kin, RY2 (1474) tembezziement) Ac

cord Comm nucalth Thomas, 410 Pa

160. #4 Add 255 258. cert denied. 31

c ate ag Ct 12%. 1) L.Ed.2d 83 (1960

Such responsi! - yttaches even thoug!

the conspirator Was not physically present

when the acts were committed by his fel

ow conspiralrs and would extend even U

» homicide whic a contingency of a

natufe! execution of the conspiracy, ever

though such homicide 15 not specifically

contemplated by the parties See Ureolo

7712 Md

Thomas, 189 A.2d at 258. See ge nerally, }

F. Wharton, supra: 2) AmJur.2d §§ 386

gy (196°

at 633, 325 A.2d at R92 accord

(4) This rule rests on Un underlying

principie that one who encourages. aids

abet, or assists Ure active perpetrator ir

he comin of wv fer is a FV I

r " a ? eve f the law

jus 2 “ ut re wl dm ,

3 Ss. ec. Ureiolo, 272 Md 60°. Je

4 24 878%. accord Bloomer | State, 48 Md

59) (1878: see Ex Parte Williams, 383

So 2d 564. 565 (Ala). cert denied. 449 US

99s, 10] S Ct. 334. 66 LEd.2d 293 (1980)

And this enminal accountability extends to

the proximate. natura! and logical! conse

quences of the conspiracy Williams, 383

So.2d at 565. It follows that the law looks

upon such a conspirator as an actual partuc

ipant im the contemplated offense In

short. the act of the co-conspirators in the

case at bar was the act of Grandison

{5] The determination of venue in the

instant case must rely Upon this theory of

viearoes cnmina! respoosibilty which

arises out of the exstence of the conspir

acy The conspiracy which Grandisor

took part had as its gos! and sole objective

the homeides of two vicume As & co-con

apirator, Grandison became criminally re

sponsible for the acl of his fellow conepir

ators, acta which were committed in Balt

more County. Since the record reveal:

that in this conspiracy Grandison played #

principal role he is subject to venue at u

situs of the enmmeé According!

view had the issue been proper’) al

would be without meri

Seperate Trals as & Count

Grandson also asserts that the charg

of conspuracy and handgun violatwn wert

improperly uned in Somerset Counts i

yuncucr with the murder charge

Appellant was charged in a four coun’

indicument with the murders of Scott Px

chowicz and Susan Kenned). conspire

murder Seott and Chery! Prechowicz. af

use of a handgun in the commussior of a

enme of violence. He sought remove

the case for una! without reference

count: Subsequently, he moved to seps

rate the tral of the conspiracy count fror

the tra! of all other count Appelar

argued that he intendec & tare the witre

stanc ©. his Owe defer s¢ WH Pes}«

the corspirac’ charge Ov wuhed U fete

silent with respect & the murocr charge

After the proceedings were ren vec

Somerset County, the movor for separa

trials was denied. We perceive no error u

the denial of appellant s mowvor

{6} It is uncontroverted that the de

sion as to whether to grant @ severance is

within the sound discrevon of the tna

cour. Stevenson v State 43 Md. Apr

120. 190, 403 A.2d 812, 81 (1979), affad

ORT Md 304, 413 A.2d 1340 (1980). State:

Jones. BA Md 232. Be 395 A.2d l)t-

1185 (1979). The tna! court, # exercising

its discrebon, & required balance Ue

likely preyudice to the accused against Ue

590 Me

possible effects on economy and efficiency

in judicial) administreuon. McKnight &

State, 230 Md. 604, 609-10, 375 A2d 55)

555 (1977)

{7} Moreover, we note that in considdr

ing a charge of conspiracy. the overt acts

of the conspirators in the commission of

the crime are clearly relevant and matena

to the proof of the conspiracy. See Jones

vr. State, 8 Md.App. 370, 379-80, 259 A.20

807. 813 (1969), Aall + State. 23) Md 45%

461. 190 A 2d 795, 79 }964 It follows

that in the case at bar. evidence of Une

homicides and surrounding circumstances

is relevant and matena! Ww the conspiracy)

which in the first instance contemplated

and directed their commission The hor

cides at wsue here are Clear!

‘

reiatec Ww Un

conspiracy

(8) Additionally, abser

contrary. it would bh

t authority Ww the

foolhardy and pur

poseless to require as of nght two tnals

one for a crime committed and one for

commit the

conspiracy w same crime

Green v. State. 25 Md. App. 679, 686, 337

A.24 729. 733 (1975) At tnal. appellant

offered no authority or compelling jusuf

cation for a finding that a severance was

warranted. Only the following wok piace

at the February 27, 19M heanng. in pert

nent part

“THE COURT Thre Mouon for

Separate Trials under Count 1. 2 and 4

] guess what vou re Saying. you re as)

ing that Counts 2 ard 4 be tned and

that Count 3 be tned separate

Counts 1 and 2 are murder, first de

gree murder, and 4 is a handgun viola

tion, and 3 is conspiracy. What you're

saying is that the charges be severed and

that we have two separate trails

AJl right. I'm ready w hear from you

on that. You want w be heard on that

sir’

MR. GRANDISON: Yes, sir. Yes

Your Honor

Appellant does not argue that the conspiracy

under which he ws charged is unrelated to the

homicides committed in furtherance of the con

@27-

$06 ATLANTIC REPORTER, 24 SERIES

THE COURT. Al! nght. sr

MR. GRANDISON The position or

this motion w Uthat count should be ses

ered because | inund W take the stand

as to Count 3. but not as Count | and

2. which the Stale w seeking Ure deat!

penalty. My position » that if cases are

uned jointly, if | take the stand. then |

would be subject Ww being cross «xamined ’

as © any prnor convicuior that | ma

have 1 fee! that U might be ver

prejudicial to Me as Us those tw

which the Stal b b we

alty

THE COURT Are you saying tha

reason (thuse count r aa Hafele

becuuse—did | understand you & sa

Counts 1] and J vou @ i wa Ww Lake

the stand. but on Count 4 you a

MR GRANI ISON (

spiracy offense J] mtend wu ane

‘ ffor

stand and

THE COURT I see

MR GRANDISON Euta

and 2,1 dor wis! vestif

THE COURT. All ngt And becau

of tha you thin? re ast

Lest

separated that tr

aratec is that r re

VR GR ANI l

oniy reasor } Pie a a fea

MR. GRANDISON. The conspire

fense in this case a distinct offer

from the substantse offense wt

first degree murder charges. | dor

believe it to be true thal evidence hat

would be admissible in the conspira

count would be adrmussibie as wel) in the

first degree murder case

spiracy. Ci. McKmghi +. State, 280 Ma 604. 5

Ald 551 (1977

ERIES

URT. All right, sir

ANDISON The position on

& Unat counts should be sey

« I intend to take the stand

$, but not as to Counts | and

¢ Stale w seeking the death

y position wm that if cases are

if 1 take the stand, then |

byect lo being cross-examined

pror conviction that I may

e! that this might be ver

m™ as W those two count

ate is seeking the death per

RT. Are vou Saving that th:

counts should be separat

1 | understand vou wo sav ir

a 2 you don't want to tak

it on Count 4 vou d

SDISON Count 3» th

nse l intend wo Wake the

stuify, offer testimony

RT 1 see

*DISON: But as w Count

Ol wish Ww testify

tT: All nght. And becaus«

thinh he Case Shouid be

it the counts should be sep

at the only reasor

NDISON That's nv tt

i heave additiona! rea

DHISON Dn -” ‘

nO a0ditiona! reason other

lated

DOISON The conspiracy of

case i a distunct offense

Stantive offense which is

murder charges. 1 don't

« true that evidence that

ussible in the conspiracy

admissible as wel) ir the

urder case

might + State 280 Vd 604 37°

GRANDIBSON +. STATE

Mé 591

(Cave ow Me ADs SaD (had 1088)

| have oo authority righUy before me

t© support that position I think the

w—the law i clear on Uhat as wel! as Unc

rules, that evidence may be admissible in“

& conspiracy. but not be admissible to

substanuve offense

I think that I am entitled to a separate

tral on these two counts. especially in

light of the fact that | have presented to

the Court that | wish to take the stand as

to the conspiracy and not ax wo the firs:

degree murder counts

This is not no ordinary runof-them

case. The State « seeking the deatt

penalty on first count of the indictment

the first two counts of the indictment ]

think the situation would be different

from any other case and | think chat I'm

entitied © &@ Separate tma! on thes«

counts, and | subn

MR GRANDISON Your Honor. of

fer one additional thing To force me

mto a tna! of Count 3 along with the

first two counts in the indictment would

be a—pul me in Une position where |

would have to offer defense for my a

leged codefendant as well, where |

wouldnt be in that position if 1 wa

being tmed separate for both count

But being as the conspiracy count. the

State would allege different things as a

or allegedly commitied by thres

fendants which would force me in &

von to have & deferd the act allegedis

committed by them which | think would

be very prejudicial and no way could |

receive a fair tria! being tried in al! these

counts together

We are unable to find any authonty for

the proposition that a tna! court is required

to grant @ motion for separate trals as a

matter of nght to a criminal defendant

upon an allegation by that defendant that

he wishes to testify on less than al! counts

charged against him. In this case, Grand

son has done little more than express a

generalized desire to testify as to some

S. See supre noice | and accompanying tev

counts but not others He has not md)

cated what he would or would not have

tesufied & and whether such testumon,

would have been of any particular impor

tance We are thus unable w concluds

that appellant has demonstrated compelling

prejudice resulting from denial of the mu

uon for separate tnais when we have leer

given no wdication that tesumonys & &

offered or withheld by ajpeliant had «

value See McAnight, 2h) Md at 60

ho Ald Sol

Therefore. we conclude that Grand

bare allegation proffered in support

motor wit? nothing more under

record before us is no basis for manda’: ;

a severance of tria Sec. e¢. United

States + Corbin. 734 F.2d 643. 644%

Lith Cor 19m4) It follows. then. that there

war no abuse of discretion on the par

the tna! court in denying appeliants rr

von for separate trals

{9} Considering the allegatior that

conspiracy) and handgun counts were ir

properly removed along with the murcer

counts from Baltuumore County in the

mstance, we conclude this argument to

without ment

As Age Simok r “Orrect.\ nol °

ucge . ,

tna You remove the whole cass

part of More particu'ar’s former M

Rule 744° speaks in tern f wransferre

Ne Ca r r f

Fur! n Steven : ‘

App 152. 263 A.2d 36 119TH. the Cour

Special Appeals held that “[Ejven thoug!

[an] indoctment contains other counts wt

charge offenses which are not punisha!

by death. those offenses are carned alors

with the removal of the offense that is or

may be punishable by death. and are a

removed for tna! /d at 162 263 A2c a:

Finally. we note that appellant's ini

movon did not express the intent lo ren

only the murder counts from Balur

County. Indeed. appellant's “Motor. ar

Affidavit for Removal! of Tma!” f t>

ec v

> —

692 Md

case Gemanded « removal of appellant's

trai As we have stated herew. 4 was

proper for appellant's enure (rel encom

passing a!) coun which were enumerated

in the Balumore County Grand Jury Indict

Md Rule 744

Therefore, in light of the plain langvage

enunciated in former Md Rule 744 and Si¢

venson, 9 Md App 152 263 A2d 36. we

hold Unat the tna! court did not er

transferring Ube enure pro ceding to Son

erset County

We turn now w the sue of whether th

tia! court erred in refusing u grant app

mants request to file a plea of insar

The request was made on Apmi 25, 1964

the day before tra! was scheduled tu begir

The procedures governing the assert

of the insanity defense at the time of the

Grandison tna! were dictated by sector

12-108 of the 1982 Health—Genera! Aruck

of the Maryland Code and former Maryland

Rule 731.6 The rule and the statute n

be read in conjuncuor Their combined

provisions require the defense of insar

Ua! Picea mac a pies J »

mad withir sae 424 after ; earlier

of the appearance ‘ eounse r the for

appearance f the defendar before the

court pursuant to former Md Rule 723

This period is automatically extended if a

motion, demand for particulars. or other

aper requiring @ ruling by the court or

' t

6 The provisions § 12-106 of the 196)

Health—General Arucie of the Marviand Code

can mow Ge found wm § |)-iOhax and (2

that article § Marviand Code (1982 1985 Cum

Supp ). Health—Genera’ Ariicle § 12-109 we

1984 Md Laws & The provisions of forme

Mid Rule 73! « are now onuined in Marland

Rule 4 242ia) while forme: Rule 7 b&b ) uw now

Rule 4-242(bK}

The docke: refle > n the fiheen 4

~ Cea

perved trom Ap vue Ar . wae he

UJ “ing \u c were ma t

AD ‘

$06 ATLANTIC REPORTER, 4 SERIES

compliance by # party before enternng «

plea w filed Former Md Rule 73) b 2

Such « filing delays the deadline for enter

ing 8 ples anti! fifteen days after the cour

has ruled on the motion /d

Both the statute and the rule provide {

The court may sccept an insanity plea a

any ume before commencement

fthe wu

upon a showing of “good caus

Appellant posits two theomes ur

which he contends the tna! court si

have accepted hit insanity plea Fir:

asserts Uial i plea War Litre under f

mer Rule 73] b 2 and the court was ther:

fore without discretion u reject it inv

alternative. appellant argues that he mad

an adequate showing of “good cause” a

required by § 10® and former Ruk

Db, hence he was entit'-4 to plead insar

prnor w the commencement of una

110) Appellant's first areument fa

since f motion, Gemand for part ar

or olher paper requinng ruling dy U

court or compliance by a pa ., before er

tering &@ plea Was ruled upon by the cour

in the fifteen day penod preceding his a

tempted entry of the insanity plea* Cons

quentiy. the automatic extension of forn

Rule 731 b 2 does r coms

* ? the aL fe Sar fv Te r fir k

appeara wlor vr r J

19% the fifte Gu\ per junnc «

expired long before Apn) 25. 19&4

{11} Thus, Grandison was entitled w e

ler a late plea of insanit yr upon a

showing of “good cause Marviand Co

Re-removal dened Apri! 13. 1984—Defendar

Motion to Withdraw Voluntar w to Othe

wise Disqualify Judge demed Apr! 16 1964

Order to usue subpoens duces tecum Apr é

1984—Order to transier inmate issued Apr ’

Apr 19 1984—Defendani s M f Cor

ance Gemed Apri 25 1964—rdecr f menia

examination of defendant msued Apr! 24 |) 984

Defendants Renews! of Motion for Cor

ance dened Apr 2¢ 1984—Delendar vi

' ndividusa! \ Dire granie Pe

UES

e party before entering «

ormer Md

uve Ue deadline for enter

fifvween days after Une cour

ie and Ue rule provide for

Uvese

movor

Rule 73)

Ure cons\BiInu

accept an Mmeaennty pies &

commencement of Ue ins

f good caus

tw Uneor v

is the tna! court s

nsanity plea 7.

piea war Uri under |

2 ene the rea re

reuon reje

lant argues Wat he mac

wing of “good cause a

108 and former Rule 7

entitled lo plea ’

mencemer f ww

s fwst argumer :

demand for par P

requiring @ ruling ¢

nee by a party before «

as ruled upon t ne

¥Y pernwd preceding r 2

Ure insanity piea .

matic extension of forn

loew* r come

int made - fr k ‘

re the a

file the insar . "

re Apr é 19a4

andison was enttied Ww e

of insanity only upon sa

} Cause Maryland Cod

Apr 3. 1984—Defendar

raw Voluntanis or to Uthe

sage Gemeed. April 16. 1984

»poena duces tecum. Apr .

ansier mmmate iasved Apri! 19

“ue subpoena duces tecurr

efendant's Motion for Con

1984—Order for menia

ssued Apri! 26

of Motion for Con

fendant

wwe

26. 1984

a) % Dire

Defendar

granied

}9R-s

“M

GRANDIBON +. STATE Me 65593

(1982). Health—General Arucle. § 12-108

former Md Rule 73152 Aldinoug? sot &

the content of the maanity plea. we heave

previously hele Ut 6 Statulory require

mer ' good couse ves Wer Uw’ cov

with ewe Guwcrevor Ser Slate Prerer

298 Md 422. 470 A.2d 1269 (194) (ducus

ing “good cause m conler of postpone

ment of tra! date) State r Jones. 770 Me

ne 2 A2d 2) (1973) (analyse of “go

a ; req remer w per ar ’

whores fens sec r ra ta

er We now holt Wie > c-_ a

re remer fs ‘ ar forme r

keer ences r 4 r .

_ a - 7? Tv, a | 5

sete rm™mins - oF : he wutl

- ar «=? we en "ee ,

here wat & ear ar . at ca re

‘v) LX mor wry ;¥v 4

‘ 4 ‘ A? 4 > 4

Beca we fee! tha 6 mph

- “a > re at

re ~ re 7

e - e proflere re de fe ‘

r hearnng de err wm hethe

ea good ca arr g the acce

ance fs iav - a ea s

a . u anuave . ‘ee Na

> eer mfr - * -- 4 2

«> * * . .

atin

r pr de f avr era P

“? » wonca hac ber r ate pur

A aope ar Apr : see TOG

‘ nr arrs proy- f nia 7

ar at 4 ne Apr pw ear

ice Sompkins gave 3 fue: hand a

he even precipitatec Ural

request for a menta’ eva-ve r

; war filed t he defendar

ny r be fore our “a slam Ir

Oer W bare me af ‘ Ty *

w ge hom the etarm ne m UWrat fe

quested in We pies ar give ‘Tr

hear ‘ tra Ne re . . a

contacted «4 peycheve' who w employec

by the Department of Health and Menu

Hygiene. and asted him if he woul’ s

range for s peychwUrx exam

ear kind enoug? & arreng® ha’ @te

na n afer he g ‘ work le nig

He went to the Wicom« Ou

> t io me

wnuon Uenur af be . .

with Mr Grandson He met oh *¥

a a i rar »| _

a —

a ane y ,

Ma “a ” - +

>. ’ “e

4 as } ha re ecte

fuse a o the a e ha

2 a o stance

. hecause ? . ’

te 5 4 7 : .

. . “a _ e*

s ‘\e _ *

s se * . =

ot . ‘ rv

" ge

Ss - have 4

. *a

ta . apre a

‘

exar }

‘ Z " . “

4 ‘ re

* ave Wise ts r ’

es , .

“a ? re :

r omMrTav * r . “

i nave y ‘ rese 2

era a Gever ‘ :

States + Byrrs 740 F2

he ;

a ’ ‘ ‘

45. 4> cer! deni ‘

4 45 wi kA oO 5

‘ 4 6

. Bone 44 F2 :

) , s ‘ f 4)4

"“~ 7 r )969 eer 4

: . w & P t

(1970; United States « Albright, 888 F 2d

719, 726-27 (4th Cir. 1968)

113,14) A defendant s, however, env

ted to the assistance of counse! in deter

mining whether to submit to 8 peychiatric

examination. Fatelle » Smith, 451 US

454, 471, 101 S.Cu 1866, 1877, 68 L.Ed 2d

359, 374 (1981). Since Grandson was act

ing as his own counsel, the only possible

complaint he might have @ that he was

demed assistance of standby counsel! in de

termuning whether to undergo mental eva!

uation. However, the April 25, 198

“Plea” itaelf reflects that thu was not 50

It requests that the court “arrange proper

psychistree examination of Defendant” and

is signed by both the defendant and his

standby counsel. Also, at the April 26u

hearing, standby counsel, acting at the re

quest of the defendant, stated that pror to

the filing of this plea “Mr. Grandison and I

had s considerable discussion about the

fine distinction between competency

stand trial and insanity at the time the

crime was commitied” Thus, it is clear

that the decision to undergo psychiatric

evaluation was made after consultavon

with standby counse! Therefore, there

was po excuse for appellant's subsequent

refusal to proceed with the examunavon

He cannot now complain that he was not

given an opportunity to demonstrate “good

cause” or that the trial court's refusa! of

the insanity plea was m error. The defense

did not demonstrate “good cause” for entry

of the late plea Thus, the trial judge

& Now Md Rule 4271, wtuch provides

Rule 4271. Trial dau

(s) Trial Dare @ Ciraus Court —The date

for wrial ww the carcwt court shall be set withuo

30 days afver the carber of the appearance of

counse! or the first appearance of the defend

Art 27. § 39) prowdes

§ 59). Semng dau fo mal postpon

pen:

(a) Within two weeks after the arrmgoamen!

of @ person accused of » crumnal offense or

$44 ATLANTIC REPORTER, 34 SERIES

property exercued hs decreton @ re

fusing to accept the maanity plea

Violation of Former Md Rule 746

Grandson claims that the charges

against him should have been dismussed

because he was not tried within 180 days of

his arraignment and there was no post

ponement for good cause by an adminstra

(1957, 1982 Rep! Vol, 1985 Cum.Sup;

Art 2, § 591 and former Md Rule 746 *

The record reveals that Grandson was furs!

arraigned in the Circuit Court for Balt

more County on July 19, 1983, thus the 15

days requirement of Rule 746 started &

rup malang January 15, 1984 the expiratior

date before which the case was W be tried

in the Circuit Court for Balumore County

Tria! was initially set for November 1)

1983. but was subsequently postponed unt

January 3. 1984. The case was removed

from the Circuit Court for Baltumore Cour

ty to the Circuit Court for Somerset Cour

ty on December 16, 1985, on Grandson 's

motion. The record is silent as to what, if

anything occurred on January 3 1984. It

is clear, however, that on January 20, 1984

the Circuit Court for Somerset County set

the tria! date for Apri) 26. 19™

moved w dismiss based on two ground

first, he argued to the tra! judge that once

the 180 days had elapsed January 15, 1954

Grandsor

within two weeks afier the filing of an appear

ance of counse! or the appowunen! of counse

for ap accused in any crumuna! matter, whuch

ever shall ccow firm, 2 judge or other desig

ested official of the carew! court in whuch tbe

matic: ws pending shal) set 2 date for the tna

of the case, which date shal) be not later ar

180 davs from the date of the erraigament of

the person accused of Uw ay

appowunes! of count for the accused

whichever cocurs fra The date established

for the wal of the matic: chal! oot be pos

pooed except for good caus shown by the

moving party and only wnb the permussoo of

the admunimrative padge of the court where

the mater w peoding

arance of the

wmer Md Rule 746

s that the charges

have been dismissed

tuned within 180 days of

d there was no post

‘ause by an sdmunisus

tt to Maryland Code

Jol. 1985 Cum.Supp)

former Md Rule 746°

nat Grandison was first

yweuit Court for Balu

19, 1983; thus the 15

{ Rule 746 started u

15, 1984 the expiratior

ve case was wo be ted

for Baltumore County

vet for November 1)

juently postponed unt

he case was removed

rt for Baltimore Cour

rt for Somerset Cour

1983, on Grandison s

is silent as to what, if

n January 3, 198

st on January 20, 19™

Somerset County 5

i} 26, 1984 Grands

ued on two grounc

e tria) judge that once

sed (January 15, 198)

er the filing of an appear

x appointment of counse

y cruminal matter which

1, a judge or other desig

arcu court which une

sall set a date for the wna

sie shall be oot later than

ate of the arraignment of

od cause shown by the

jy with the permussion of

sdge of the court where

GRANDISON *. STATE

Md. 595

Cone as 908 A2d 500 (Bd 1988)

the trial court 00 longer had any jurisdic

tion. Secondly, he claimed that the admin

intrative judge did not grant the postpone

ment as required by the rule

Both Art 27. § 59! and former Rule 746

provide that tra! shall be set within 180

days after the earlier of the appearance of

counse! or the first appearance of the de

fendant before the circurt court The stat

ute and rule als: provide that for good

cause shown the County Admuinistratiy'

Judge may grant 4 change of a circuit

court tna! dau

{15} In our we the rule & SIM ly mal

plicable here where a! Grandison § reque

the case was removed ww the Circuit Court

for Somerset County '€s* than a month

before the Januar) 2 1984 tna) date set if

the Circuit Cour for Baltimore Count

This is reac) understandable since the

statute anc rue only address the situatior

where a case & Se" and ultimately tned in 4

single circul court. and not where @ We

date has been set im one circuit court but

the case has been rem wed to a different

circuit court for tna Indeed, to conclude

that Art. 2. § 54) and former Rule 74¢

similarly cover remove situauons would be

to render useless and uneffecuve the pn

pa! requirement contemplated by the stat

ute and rule Judge Eldndee speaking for

the Court in State Franer. 2 Ma 4--

453, 470 A.2d 126% 19n4), stated

“The major safeguard contemplatec D)

the statute and rule for assuming that

criminal tals are not needlessly post

poned beyond the \goday period, is the

requirement that the administrative

judge or hus designee. rather than an)

judge, order the postponement This is a

logical safeguarc. * it us the adminisus

tive judge who has ap overall view of the

court's business. Who & responsible ‘for

the admuustravon of the court,” who as

signs tna! judges, who supervises the

assignment of acuons for tral, who su

pervises the court personne! involved In

the assignment of cases and who re

@ The record joes 1" reflec: tha: Grandiser

ceives reports from such personnel”

(footnotes omitted)

* Clearly then former Rule 746 was not

designed to cover the removal situation

In such a situation the administravve

judge of the cirevit court from which the

case Was removed would be unable to fu!

fill those functions contemplated by the

statute and rule /d Similarly, to expec’

and require that the receiving court adhere

to the tna schedule set forth in the former

circuit court wuld be to bestow upon the

administrative judge of the receiving cour

an unreasonatie burden whict oftentime

could result m ar ympossibie task Under

standably. this was recognized by the tna

judge Somerset County who. iM deny'ng

Grandison s motion to dismiss. statec If

part

Obwousiy. when you ask for remova

like that. you automatica!!) extend tn

trial date. There is no 8) in this cour

ty we could have tried it on the 3rd

January. No. 1, we only had 12 days

because of the Christmas holiday and

weekends and New Year's holiday and

we have the problem of cancelling ov

four or five months of cases that hac

already been scheduled to be uied We

onix have one judge anc one courtroon

in U ynty. so it becarme necessary

ntinue the trial Gate & the reques:

the defendant »

116} We hold therefore that when 4

emmina! case & removed on 4 defendan:

request. the una! date assigned in the for

warding circuit court pursuant to An 2

§ 591 and present Rule 4-27] is sitnou'

effect. We further hold that under suc!

anew in the receiving circuit court from the

time the case & received therein A de

fendant also remains protected by his

speedy wna! rights under the federa! 3m

state consutuvons

{17} We also point out that this holding

is equal!) applicable where the State ob

tains the remo¥ al. but with some jymitauor

ever asacc for a continuance

596 Med

If it appears tat such removal was for the

purpose of or had the necessary effect of

circumvenung the requiremens of the sta!

ute and the ruk the ongina! tna! date will

hold. See Curiey * State, 299 Md. 449

474 A.24 2 94 icharges refiled follow

ing nolle prosequ Sto vt Glenn we

Md 464.474 46 cus () 984), and compare

State Ph ; ooo Ma 40 vw

512 (19

according!> * ment wo Great

s Z

orn

¢ a Des sa

nod © “

uw Mary 4 aac Marys

( on ir ‘ a

a aye ™

Granc I *- if

the Cir Balur

era ume [ matwn o e .

u as anpearm We >

“a federe . New k a

up —" he hearing 7

anc ther mater eas re urnesc New

York ¢t ra @ r A r

‘ o 4 ary

n m eng w

i . . . er

* “A ‘ “ eve “a nece

cars w have Grands attendance 3

court f r mat? nnectec U this case +

wnt of habeas corpus ad prosequendu”

was obtained 3! -erved Thereupor fed

era marst.a escorvec Grancson ri

and stayec * th him until the court DU

ness was com) eted. Grandson was Wen

10. Thai < siaiecs

tenon of reque ~The approprs*«

get ATLANTIC REPORTER. 24 SERIES

New York by te {edera

being held in 8

It also appear’

eacorted back

* marshal. where he was

pretna! detenuon facility

that dumng this penod Grandison was no

serving 3 pend of incarceravion

The wi!

only pre

tna! detenvon judge concluded

that he was not satisfied that Grands

eS serving ® sentence tm Federe

Court,” that mo detainer ¥@ filed, and ths

f the custoc)

ri. § 6l6hia

wrt

Grandapor

federe

never «

mars" Artickt

contains n wunggenne events

as argue® Siu, were f met her

a detainer wt

there is Gout

ympane ling fa

una! juce* jemec @ yf these

Granaiseo’ now complains

IES

New York by the federal

he was being held ma

n faciiity It also appears

penod Grandiwon was not

of incarceration, only pre

The tna! judge concluded

sausfied that Grandson

sentence in the Federa

elainer was filed, and that

ft the custody of the

Article 27. § 616Eta)"

uiggenng events whuicl

Stats, were not met here

a clear a@ Ww What Wa

ge found that it fell shor

r Secor d there isd

ment & 616Ela that

rving a term. of incarcera

tma! judge a4 not think

6Eia) requires that cust

the Slate t Was not

the tria! judge Ved

a! judge errea. he hearc

Saw what Was presented

r mer th th .

©C afm ac sf a

niecac Ja ‘ ar

either he rv ed w ha

‘ He a soug

= ‘ . 7

A 3 uf

a | Pr re .

arceraicd pr de ha

tu n¢é ‘Tv

TMpiain! sha have Ou 2

a ‘v c ‘ Gut

2 c ma & 2 per

e " . .

reques! & * c “

govern send

reque -

GRANDISON +. STATE Md 597

Cite as 588 A2d S00 (Md 1980)

nied a fair ual. We disagree. In Erans

v. State, 4 Md. 487, 499 A.2d 126) (1985)

we had occasion to address this wentica!

issue when Evans rained it in the Circuit

Court for Worcester County where he was

being tried. The reasons cited by Evans

are the same, basically, as those cited by

Grandison What Judge Eldndge wrot

for the Court there is equally applicable u

Grandison’s argument here and is disy

tive of his contention Judge Eldndge stat

ed in part

We hold that the record support th:

decision of the tna! judge W der +

request for further remova We have

consistently taken the position that tf

question is one which rests within the

una! court s discretion. reviewable on aj

peal oni U determine whether there ha

heen an abuse of discretuor

Id a 2 499 4 2d at 12 4 ls

According!\. we herein ce ude that tne

, = .

denia! of the reques f surtne re =

did not amount tw an abuse of discret

under Maryland law

The same can be said of the tra un

denial of a continuance It ws t r d

Pule that the determinatior f whether

gre ac va t ¢ wit! the s

3 re Ne (ria ur i ;

\ 4 ~ He: * M4

4 if thatad re

{19} Similarly. the determinat

have the jury sequestered throughout tne

trial is discretionary. Former Md Rule °:

e inow Md Rule 4-3liten. Marviana Code

1974. 1984 Repl. Courts and Jud

Proceedings Aru § & 304. sec Evons

304 Md. 487, 499 A.2d 1261 11985) Here

too. Grandison has failed to provide us wott

anv indication that there was an abuse of

discretion There is no proof of juror pre

udice To the contrary. the jurors received

da admonitions against exposure to pul

1 Former Mid Ruic ~ ? G

7 mo perm he par

{20} Finally, Grandison's contenvor

that a new jury should have been impar

elled due to alleged discussions connecting

him to the Mafia is completely wit!

ment and foundation in the record Ar

possibility of prejudice resulting from thus

rumors was adequately cured by the tna

court's individual questioning of the fr

spective juror Consequent! there ‘eo

no abuse of the trial courts d re’

, | )

{21} ; ey . » 4) 4 ‘

nat U ria jucye r re Xe

oi U urs cn md “a a Ja

prote hom fr prota

de “ be pr

srfuy ce Le E ey r a

with the recog ¢ ,

abs a sta r rr

nirar a } @

faiwr re 4 fair -

jur ne 4

a r dire re " r

‘ . er -

Md 4 4. 499 AZ J

< mu ¥ .

3u : .

"7 "

4 r ‘

al ‘ r 4

f RN °

na y r dire n r t r

pane a to potentia’ prejugice resvU

from the gut vercict rendre’

Evans tra! which was fe fea?

Worcester Count

Appellant has offered ne auth«r

that a tna! court conduct ind\idua! sor

dire of each member of the jury after tr

nas ommenced nM 3 Catv Ase “rer

there ar alegator f wr : 3 :

Suiting fron put 1 1a fe

arate. tris

7 » Y

Nonetheless. severa! related principles of

law exist which in our analysis force us to

conclude that appellant's argument must

fail

To support his contention, appellant re

hes im part on Silverthorne vr. United

States. 400 F.2d 627 (9th Cir.196%), cert

demed. 400 US 1022. 91 SCt SHS. 277

L.F.d.2d 633 (1971). for the proposiven that

m some mslance

where a siagmificant po

tenual for prejudice ha» been found. ind

vidual voir dire of the

jurors w required

We decline analyze the ment of uch a

contention as we find the case sub judi

factually disunguishable to Silverthorne

In Silverthorne the appellant

that the tra! court committed reversible

error in failing w ascertain durnng voir dire

ano al

arguec

certain specific points in the tra

whether. in light of the massire news me

dia publicity which antedated and

Was contemporaneous with the tna! the

prejudice toward appellant

In analyzing the parucu

whict

jurors bore ar

400 F.2d at 630

lar situation. the United States Cour of

Appeals noted that during the tna! some

jurors. while situng in the jury room. reac

the newspaper accounts of appellant's tna

indeed, one parucular juror maintained «

comprehensive collection of newspapgr an

cles pertaining Ww appellants tna da

til. Though these facts were broug

the attention of the une! judge dumng the

tna!l, he nonetheless failed w ir Quire @ A

the possible infiuence of the article: or

further attempt w remedy the situation

In holding that the trial] court erred. the

Circuit Court of Appeals stated. “[Wk

have no recourse. in light of this inodent

but to attmbute little if any weight u

the court's repetitive admonivons thal the

jurors should read or hear nothing about

the case Id. at 641. Relying w part or

Coppedge v. United States. 106 US Ap;

D.C. 275. 22 F.2d Wa, We 11959). cert

denied, 36% U.S. &55, 82 S.Cr 92, 7 L Ed 2d

52 (1961). the court noted. “It ws Une

affirmative duty of the tna! court t

606 ATLANTIC REPORTER, 24 SERIES

posilse acuuon to ascertain the exustence of

, Mprojer influences on the jurors’ delilera

steps are necessary to diminish or eradicals

such impropnmeties Silverthorne, 4

F.2d at 643

We find the significant fact existing

Silverthorne. knowledge on the part of th

tris ? f blatant vs utions t memoer

ft . f the tria ourt s edmor

not WO te reser mn the case at bar Fur

ther ase ult bar. there no eviorr

on re . ‘wn cpu \ surr

appr , ru ’ r a legat f

ex u U surround c tr re

latec t e rate LVans (Mma

In ¢ rag he United Stats our

Appe r e | r uMbis

Cull rever he nv f « cnmina

defence ne va Mat the tria r

failed t ascertain the possible effe

Wis! [fv members of the ur

the tna) court was found t

have a “wec the jury Ww twice separa

overnig’?.: withou! admomshing the juror

agains’ reading newspaper arucles atx

the pe g tmal Further. the tna! cour

failed nquire inw the potentua’ prejuc

harbor those jwror he tma! cour

knew f rte wspaper accou f

proce T ‘a r cor

— r he tria’ court}

Ca>t 2 ri Si

ac juror €apose Une

selves Tmedia publicity further, there

in the record that suggests th:

ima! cou™ hac knowledge that an) member

or mer.ter the jur hac violate