Powell v. State

¶1Dissenting Opinion by

¶2which BELL, C.J., joins.

¶3Respectfully, I dissent.

¶4A criminal defendant’s right to a jury trial is a fundamental right under both the United States and Maryland Constitutions. See U.S. Const. Amend. VI, XIV § 1; Md. Const. Dec. of Rights, Art. 5, 21, 24; see also Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 154, 88 S.Ct. 1444, 1450, 20 L.Ed.2d 491 (1968). In Maryland, a defendant’s right to waive a trial by jury may be exercised only by the defendant. Smith v. State, 875 Md. 365, 379-81, 825 A.2d 1055, 1064 (2003). Such a waiver is valid and effective only if made on the record in open court and if the trial judge determines, after an examination of the defendant on the record and in open court, that it was made “knowingly and voluntarily.”1 Maryland Rule 4-246(b); *647Smith, 375 Md. at 378-81, 825 A.2d at 1063-64; State v. Bell, 351 Md. 709, 724-24, 720 A.2d 311, 319 (1998); Tibbs v. State, 323 Md. 28, 31-32, 590 A.2d 550, 551-52 (1991); Stewart v. State, 319 Md. 81, 90, 570 A.2d 1229, 1233-34 (1990); Martinez v. State, 309 Md. 124, 131-35, 522 A.2d 950, 953-56 (1987). This factual determination is circumstance-specific and has two equally important components: the waiver must be both “knowing” and “voluntary.”2Tibbs, 323 Md. at 31, 590 A.2d at 551, citing State v. Hall, 321 Md. 178, 182, 582 A.2d 507, 509 (1990); Stewart, 319 Md. at 90, 570 A.2d at 1233-34; Martinez, 309 Md. at 134, 522 A.2d at 955. “[Cjourts indulge every reasonable presumption against waiver of fundamental constitutional rights ... and do not presume acquiescence in the loss of fundamental rights.” Zerbst, 304 U.S. at 465, 58 S.Ct. at 1024, 82 L.Ed. 1461 (citing Aetna Ins. Co. v. Kennedy, 301 U.S. 389, 394, 57 S.Ct. 809, 811-12, 81 L.Ed. 1177 (1937)); Hodges v. Easton, 106 U.S. 408, 412, 1 S.Ct. 307, 311, 27 L.Ed. 169 (1882); Ohio Bell Tel. Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm’n, 301 U.S. 292, 307, 57 S.Ct. 724, 731, 81 L.Ed. 1093 (1937).

¶5The majority holds that “unless there appears a factual trigger on the record, which brings into legitimate question voluntariness, the trial judge is not required presently to ask explicitly a defendant whether his or her waiver decision was induced or coerced,” and accepts the trial court’s “implicit determination of voluntariness” when nothing in the record affirmatively indicates otherwise. In addition, relying on the fact that Rule 4-246(b) does not explicitly contain the phrase “on the record” modifying the word “determination,” the majority holds that the Rule does not require a finding by the trial court on the record that a defendant has waived his fundamental right to a jury trial knowingly and voluntarily.

¶6*648The majority’s interpretation of Rule 4-246(b) is inconsistent with this Court’s treatment of Rule 4-242©3, a strikingly similar rule that also governs a criminal defendant’s waiver of a fundamental right: the right to contest the charges against him or her. Indeed, this Court has recognized the similarity between waiver of a jury trial and a guilty plea, noting “that a defendant who pleads guilty to a criminal charge waives his constitutional right to a jury trial, and ... for the waiver to be valid under the due process clause it must constitute an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege.” State v. Priet, 289 Md. 267, 289-90, 424 A.2d 349, 361 (1981). The Court of Special Appeals has held that under Rule 4-242©, “[i]t is beyond dispute that, regardless of whether a criminal defendant is represented by counsel, an inquiry must be conducted of him to ensure that his guilty plea is voluntary.” In re Montrail, 87 Md.App. 420, 427, 589 A.2d 1318, 1322 (1991), aff';d, 325 Md. 527, 601 A.2d 1102 (1992). In Sutton v. State, 289 Md. 359, 368, 424 A.2d 755, 760 (1981), this Court held that the predecessor4 to Rule 4-242© required that “the record affirmatively show that the trial court determined that ‘the plea was made voluntarily, with understanding of the nature of the charge and the consequences of the plea.’ ” There is no substantive difference between Rule 4-242(c)’s requirement that a determination be made “upon” an examination of the defendant on the record *649and Rule 4-246(b)’s call for a determination “after” such an examination on the record; both clearly indicate that a determination by the trial court must follow, and be influenced by, an examination of the defendant on the record.

¶7Maryland Rule 4 — 215(b) governs the waiver of yet another fundamental right of a criminal defendant, the right to counsel, and also contains language similar to Rule 4 — 246(b).5 As with a waiver of a jury trial, in determining the propriety of a waiver of counsel, this Court has noted that “courts indulge every reasonable presumption against waiver of fundamental constitutional rights and ... we do not presume acquiescence in the loss of fundamental rights,” and that “a waiver is ... an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege.” Johnson v. State, 355 Md. 420, 440, 735 A.2d 1003, 1014 (1999), quoting in part Johnson, 304 U.S. at 464, 58 S.Ct. at 1023, 82 L.Ed. 1461. Because of the fundamental nature of the right involved, this Court has held repeatedly that Rule 4-215 must be construed as “a precise rubric that mandates strict compliance,” and has rejected merely “substantial compliance” with its requirements as insufficient. Johnson, 355 Md. at 448-49, 735 A.2d at 1018-19; see also Parren v. State, 309 Md. 260, 523 A.2d 597 (1987); Moten v. State, 339 Md. 407, 663 A.2d 593 (1995); Okon v. State, 346 Md. 249, 696 A.2d 441 (1997). Rule 4-246(b), like Rule 4-215, is a rule of criminal procedure governing the waiver of a fundamental constitutional right. Therefore, its provisions specifying that the defendant be questioned on the record regarding the voluntariness of his or her waiver, and that the trial court make a determination that the waiver was made knowingly and voluntarily, must require nothing short of strict compliance.

¶8*650A.

¶9The majority continues the practice, most recently stated in Abeokuto v. State, 391 Md. 289, 893 A.2d 1018 (2006) and Kang v. State, 393 Md. 97, 899 A.2d 843 (2006), of arbitrarily subjecting the knowledge prong of Rule 4-246(b) to a higher level of scrutiny than the voluntariness prong, and thus elevating the former as more important than the latter. This is contrary to the plain language of the Rule and reinforces an imprecise and incomplete waiver inquiry. Kang, 393 Md. at 125, 899 A.2d at 859 (C.J. Bell, dissenting). The majority’s reasoning that “[ujnless there appears a factual trigger on the record, which brings into legitimate question voluntariness, the trial judge is not required ... to ask explicitly a defendant whether his or her waiver decision was induced or coerced,” is flawed on three counts. First, this Court has repeatedly required a specific inquiry into a defendant’s knowledge of a jury trial, regardless of any “factual trigger” indicating that such an inquiry is necessary. If the knowledge and voluntariness prongs are equally important, as the plain language of the Rule clearly indicates, then the latter is entitled to just as rigorous an inquiry as the former. Secondly, the majority’s declaration of a finding of voluntariness, based solely on the lack of affirmative evidence to the contrary, amounts to a presumption in favor of the waiver of a fundamental constitutional right. Chief Judge Bell in Kangaptly described the third flaw in this reasoning:

How, I ask, can there be any factual trigger on the record when the defendant, who may be under duress or coercion not visible to the court and which he or she may not even appreciate or understand, is never asked questions pertinent to the issue and designed to ferret out information on the subject and, thus, is not given an opportunity to reveal such information? Indeed, unless the trial court asks questions bearing on the subject of defendant’s voluntary relinquishment of his or her right to a jury trial, a defendant may not even realize that he or she may volunteer information or that the jury trial waiver colloquy is his or her only *651opportunity to advise the court of circumstances bearing on the voluntariness of the plea.

¶10Kang, 393 Md. at 126, 899 A.2d at 860 (C.J. Bell, dissenting).

¶11Several other jurisdictions also reject the majority’s approach of presuming that a waiver is voluntary despite the lack of supporting evidence. See Boyd v. United States, 586 A.2d 670, 675-76 (D.C.1991) (“The general rule is that a personal and fundamental right will be deemed waived only if there is [a] record [of] evidence demonstrating intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege”); State v. Anderson, 249 Wis.2d 586, 638 N.W.2d 301, 306 (2002) (“The waiver cannot be based on circumstantial evidence or reasonable inferences”); Walker v. State, 578 P.2d 1388, 1391 (Alaska 1978) (“The duty of the trial court to address the defendant personally on waiver of a jury of twelve extends to a duty to inquire whether the waiver is voluntary and knowing. Without such an inquiry, this court cannot determine from the record whether the waiver was properly accepted. Failure to do so is error per se.”); Short v. Commonwealth, 519 S.W.2d 828, 832 (Ky.1975) (“In determining whether a waiver of a jury trial is made understandingly, intelligently, competently, and voluntarily, the court must apply the same standards that are required on the acceptance of a guilty plea. The record made at the hearing preceding the acceptance of a waiver by the court must affirmatively set out facts which will permit an independent determination of its validity.”).

¶12B.

¶13Maryland Rule 4-246(b) also contemplates that “[t]he Court may not accept the waiver until it determines ... that the waiver is made knowingly and voluntarily.” (Emphasis added). Black’s Law Dictionary defines a “determination” as “[a] final decision by a court or administrative agency.” 480 (8th ed. 2004). Webster’s New College Dictionary defines a “determination” as “[t]he act of settling a dispute, suit, or other question by an authoritative decision or pronouncement, espe*652dally by a judidal body.” 315 (3rd ed. 2005). In light of the plain meaning of the term “determine,” the Rule therefore requires the trial judge to make a dear finding as to the knowledge and voluntariness of the defendant’s election. Surely, when this Court adopted the Rule, it did not intend such a finding to be immune from appellate review, although this will be the result of the majority’s decision to simply assume that the trial judge has correctly made a determination. Indeed, by allowing the determination to be implicit, the majority ensures that such a decision will always be affirmed on appeal through the circular reasoning that if a bench trial occurred, then the trial judge must have correctly arrived at his determination. A clear determination made on the record, on the other hand, would remove all reasonable doubt as to the trial judge’s finding. Furthermore, such a requirement would hardly constitute a significant burden on the trial court, as it could be fulfilled by a simple oral statement of one or two sentences.

¶14The Michigan Supreme Court has also rejected the majority’s approach when applying that state’s rule regarding jury trial waivers, and held “that the trial judge must ... find on the record, from evidence sufficient to warrant such finding, that the defendant, in open court, voluntarily and understandingly gave up his right to trial by jury.”6People v. Pasley, 419 Mich. 297, 353 N.W.2d 440, 444 (1984). Although Michi*653gan’s jury trial waiver rule does not state explicitly that the trial court make a determination on the record regarding the knowledge and voluntariness of a waiver, the Michigan Supreme Court reasoned that, in light of the explicit requirement that the defendant’s voluntary and knowing waiver be on the record, “the statute ... will not permit less” than such a finding on the record. Jd. The Vermont Supreme Court came to a similar conclusion when applying a state rule requiring court approval for a jury trial waiver, holding that “[w]e may, of course, infer that the court did not object to trial by court, but the rule requiring court approval demands more than mere acquiescence.”7State v. Coita, 153 Vt. 18, 568 A.2d 424, 426 (1989). The Vermont Supreme Court went on to reason that “[sjilent acquiescence to a waiver does not assure us that the court thought about the decision.” Id.

¶15Chief Judge BELL has authorized me to state that he joins in this dissenting opinion.