DONTA NEWTON v. STATE OF MARYLAND
Court of Appeals of Maryland, Adkins, Aug. 23, 2017,
IAC- A structural error does not automatically satisfy the prejudice prong of an ineffective-assistance post-conviction.
(Dissent- Getty- Defendant suffered prejudice and should be given new trial)
Affirming CoSA opinion
Facts:
In February of 2004, the Court of Appeals held on direct appeal that it was reversible error to allow alternate jurors to be present in the jury room during jury deliberations.
In September of 2004, Newton shot a friend who came to visit him in Baltimore City.
Newton was charged with the murder and tried before a jury in 2006.
As noted in the Court of Special Appeals opinion, BPD Det. Daniel Nicholson IV and the victim were the only witnesses testifying for the state.
At the conclusion of the trial, a mistrial was declared due to juror absence and scheduling issues.
A new jury was picked right away for a re-trial. However, at the conclusion of the second trial the judge was worried that another juror might go missing and so he wanted the alternate juror to sit in with the jury while they deliberated. The prosecutor and defense attorney agreed.
The jury then found Newton guilty on all counts. Newton was sentenced to life with two consecutive five-year sentences for handgun-related charged.
Newton appealed, but did not argue that the presence of the alternate juror during deliberations was improper.
Newton’s conviction was affirmed.
In 2012, Newton filed a post-conviction in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City arguing that his trial attorney and appellate attorney were both ineffective for failing to raise the issue of the improper presence of an alternate juror in the jury room during deliberations.
The Circuit Court granted Newton a new trial. However, the State appealed and the Court of Special Appeals reversed the Circuit Court’s decision – denying Newton the right to a new trial.
Newton then requested that the Court of Appeals review the case, arguing that he was entitled to a new trial because his lawyers were ineffective in not raising the alternate-juror issue.
Held: The Court of Appeals disagreed, holding that neither Newton’s trial attorney nor his appellate attorney were ineffective and that Newton was thus not entitled to a new trial.
Harmless Error- If a mistake was made at trial that “in no way influenced the verdict,” then a new trial is not necessary
Structural Error- Some mistakes are so fundamental to the framework of the trial that there can be no harmless error review
Structural Error- Direct Appeal- If a defendant raises a structural error on direct appeal, he is entitled to “automatic reversal regardless of the error’s actual effect on the outcome.”
Structural Error- There are three types of structural error: errors designed to protect an interest other than wrongful conviction (such as denying a defendant the ability to conduct his own defense); errors where the effects are too hard to measure (such as denying a defendant the attorney of his choice); and errors that always result in fundamental unfairness (denying an indigent defendant an attorney or failing to give a reasonable-doubt jury instruction).
IAC- A claim that a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated requires proof that: 1) the defendant’s performance was so deficient that he effectively did not have an attorney and 2) that this resulted in prejudice.
IAC- Structural Error- Just because a structural error occurred does NOT automatically require a finding of prejudice for IAC purposes
IAC- Structural Error- A structural error that always results in fundamental unfairness, however, would obviously satisfy the prejudice prong
Ineffective Assistance- In IAC analysis, a trial strategy contrary to law may still be valid trial strategy where holding otherwise would allow trial counsel to win either way
13th Juror – it is error to send an alternate juror into the jury room during deliberations, even with instructions not to participate in deliberations. And if that occurs and the defense objects, prejudice will be presumed on direct appeal.
13th Juror- Where the defense allows an alternate to sit with the deliberating jurors, prejudice is not presumed.
13th Juror- The presence of an alternate during jury deliberations does not qualify as “plain error.”
13th Juror- After accepting alternate juror at trial, not IAC for appellate counsel not to reply on plain error review and raise claim on appeal