RODERICK COLVIN v. STATE OF MARYLAND
Court of Special Appeals, Zarnoch, Filed Nov. 30, 2015,
Jury Trial – Polling – Where the foreperson announces the verdict of the jury and the clerk announces the recorded verdicts, polling the jurors and not expressly including the foreperson “does not render the verdict a nullity”*.
Vacated by CoA opinion

(Dissent – Friedman – “It is only because of my view as to the merits that I would decline to reach the merits.” Yep. Exact quote. Realizes the “chicken-and-the-egg quality to [his] analysis,” but continues nonetheless.)

(#editorialization) The “motion to correct an illegal sentence” continues eroding the finality of judgments despite the availability of appeal and post-conviction… Defendant was convicted in 1989, filed an appeal, filed for cert, and filed a post-conviction. 24 years after his conviction, he filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence because the clerk polled every juror except the foreperson (who had announced the verdict).

*Though “it is a better practice for the clerk to poll the foreperson in addition to each of the other jurors”

Interestingly, in holding that the trial court erred in finding 4-345(a) inapplicable the CoSA panel cites language (p.5) from Alston that was subsequently “withdrawn and replaced” by the Court of Appeals.

Jury Trial – Verdict – “[F]or a verdict to be considered final in a criminal case it must be announced orally, and, if requested, polled or, if no party requested a poll, then hearkened”

Jury Trial – Verdict – A verdict is not considered returned or final where there is an uncorrected discrepancy in the polling process leading to uncertainty as to whether the verdict was unanimous