State v. Graham

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
233 Md.App. 439, 165 A.3d 600 (2017)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

When imposing sanctions for a discovery violation, a trial court must consider the reason for the non-disclosure, the prejudice to the opposing party, the feasibility of curing the prejudice with a continuance, and other relevant circumstances. Dismissal of criminal charges is an extreme sanction that should be used sparingly and only after determining that less severe sanctions are inadequate.

Facts:

On August 17, 2015, Baltimore City police observed Donald Graham engage in what they suspected was a hand-to-hand drug transaction.
As a uniformed officer approached Graham moments later, the officer saw Graham throw small items under a parked vehicle.
The officer retrieved four zip lock baggies from under the vehicle, which contained a 'rock like substance' believed to be cocaine.
Graham was subsequently arrested.

Procedural Posture:

Donald Graham was charged with drug offenses in the District Court of Maryland for Baltimore City.
In District Court, Graham's counsel filed a discovery request for documents and records related to the crime lab's testing of the alleged drugs.
On the scheduled trial date in District Court, Graham demanded a jury trial.
Graham's case was then transferred to the Circuit Court for Baltimore City for a jury trial.
On the day of trial in the Circuit Court, Graham's counsel moved to dismiss the charges, arguing the State had failed to provide the requested discovery materials.
The Circuit Court, without further inquiry, granted the motion and dismissed all charges against Graham.
The State, as appellant, appealed the dismissal to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, and Graham is the appellee.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a trial court abuse its discretion by dismissing criminal charges as a sanction for the State's inadvertent discovery violation without first considering the reasons for the non-disclosure, the prejudice to the defendant, and the feasibility of a less severe sanction like a continuance?

Opinions:

Majority - Krauser, J.

Yes. A trial court abuses its discretion by dismissing charges for a discovery violation without properly applying the guiding legal standard. Although dismissal is a permissible sanction for a discovery violation under Maryland Rule 4-262, it is an extreme remedy that should be used sparingly. Here, the trial court failed to consider the well-established four-factor test for imposing discovery sanctions. The court did not inquire into the reasons for the State's non-disclosure (which was inadvertent), the actual prejudice to Graham, or the feasibility of curing that prejudice with a continuance, which the State had implicitly offered and which was a readily available and less severe remedy. By immediately imposing the most drastic sanction without this analysis, the court failed to exercise its discretion properly.

Analysis:

This case reinforces the principle that discovery sanctions should be proportional to the violation and primarily aimed at curing prejudice rather than punishing the offending party. It solidifies the mandatory application of the four-factor test from Thomas v. State for trial judges in Maryland when considering sanctions for discovery violations. The decision serves as a strong reminder to lower courts that they must create a record showing consideration of lesser sanctions before resorting to the extreme remedy of dismissing a criminal case, particularly when the violation is unintentional and easily curable.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: State v. Graham (2017)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"