STATE OF MARYLAND v. BRANDON PAYTON
Court of Appeals of Maryland, Greene, Nov. 1, 2018,
Re-opening the State’s Case – It was improper for a trial judge to base re-opening the State’s case on the severity of the charges

Affirming COSA

Weirdly enough, Case Search shows “AJAC;APPEAL RETURNED-JUDGMENT AFFIRMED” which… is not accurate.
New trial awarded, which is an interesting remedy in this case where the trial judge appeared ready to grant judgment of acquittal to the defense. Not inappropriate, unjust, or otherwise wrong, just interesting.

That being said, I have no idea how the experienced judge in this case didn’t understand the role of the SID number (separate from the State’s job to prove the matter, the judge legitimately seemed confused)

Facts:
After the State rested its case, the defendant moved for judgment of acquittal and the trial judge had concerns that the State failed to link a recovered fingerprint to the defendant.
The judge then suggested that the State re-open its case to clarify this.
This occurred, and the defendant was subsequently convicted.
The defendant appealed, arguing that the trial judge abandoned his independence in working to favor the State.

Held: The Court of Appeals held that it was inappropriate for the judge to act as the prosecutor in directing the State to re-open his case.

Re-opening the State’s Case – A trial judge may allow the State’s case to be reopened even though there was no request to do so

Re-opening the State’s Case – Fair Trial – A judge’s decision to allow the State to re-open its case must not deny the defendant a fair trial

Impartiality – A defendant has the right to a judge who both is impartial AND appears impartial

Harmless Error – A breach of impartiality is not subject to harmless error analysis