Maryland Baltimore County DUI Negligent Driving Influence Double Jeopardy Lawyers Attorneys

TEDD SIDNEY HART v

TEDD SIDNEY HART v. STATE OF MARYLAND

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

April 7, 1982, Decided

Defendant was charged with DUI and negligent driving. He requested a jury trial on the DUI charge. The negligent driving charge was called for trial in a district court. When the district judge learned that defendant had requested a jury in the DUI case, he struck defendant's plea, declared a mistrial, and referred the negligent driving charge to the circuit court for trial with the DUI charge.

On May 21, 1981, appellant filed a motion to dismiss both charges on the ground of double jeopardy. On June 26, 1981, a hearing was held on the motion in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County and appellant's motion was denied. Defendant appealed a judgment from the Circuit Court for Baltimore County.

Issue:

Whether the trial court erred in denying appellant's motion to dismiss?

Under Maryland Code (1974, 1980 Repl. Vol.) 4-302 (e) of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, the district court had no exclusive original jurisdiction over the negligent driving charge where the filing of the charging document preceded the demand for a jury trial and where the two charges arose from the same circumstances. In the instant case the district court had fundamental jurisdiction over the two offenses on the charging document. On March 27, 1981, it improperly exercised its jurisdiction in conducting proceedings on the charging document after the appellant had prayed for a jury trial on the driving while intoxicated charge. There is no doubt that under the facts in this case jeopardy attached. However, the fact that jeopardy attached was not necessarily dispositive of the issue as to whether the appellant may avoid trial on the ground of double jeopardy. We conclude, in light of the facts in this case, that the trial judge's declaration of a mistrial was not an abuse of discretion. In the instant case the trial judge aborted the trial because he discovered during the course of the proceedings that the major charge had been referred to the jurisdiction of the circuit court by reason of the accused's prayer for a jury trial. To have continued under the circumstances would have at the very least raised the issue of the jurisdiction of the district court to try the negligent driving charge and would have given rise to the same claim of double jeopardy on a different ground on the drunken driving charge. In this case, for the trial judge to have continued in the face of the facts first disclosed to him during the course of the trial, would have at best produced a verdict which might have been upset on appeal because of a lack of jurisdiction by the trial court. We conclude that when the trial court became aware of its possible lack of jurisdiction to try the negligent driving charge, there was a "manifest necessity" to abort the proceedings because the defendant's interest to proceed to verdict was outweighed by the competing equally legitimate demand for public justice. Therefore, double jeopardy did not bar a trial on both charges in the circuit court.

The court affirmed the circuit court's judgment.

Disclaimer:

These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm's unofficial views of the Justices' opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content

Maryland Baltimore County DUI Negligent Driving Influence Double Jeopardy Lawyers Attorneys

By: Atchuthan Sriskandarajah

POST COMMENT

Maryland Anne Arundel County Manslaughter Negligent Driving Lawyers Baltimore Montgomery Attorneys Suggestions on Selecting a Stellar Accident Lawyer Good Strategies For Property Investing What You Can Get for Under $100,000 – Mexico Retirement Properties Yucatan Land for Your Retirement; Planning Ahead to Save Why Compensation Lawyers Are Important A Case Of Aggravated Assault - Defense Is On The Hand Of A Proficient Criminal Lawyer Are You Charged With Dui? Find Your Qualified Dui Lawyer How To Make Money By Investing In Australian Coins California Wage And Hour Lawyer: Overtime - Don't Be Ripped Off By Your Employer Should you Hire a Virginia Criminal Lawyer or Choose a Public Defender? Ways To Get Ready For Retirement Mistakes To Circumvent When Investing In Minnesota Foreclosures