Our analysis of a mistrial motion in a deadlock situation "depends on the circumstances of the particular case." Browne v. State, 215 Md. App. 51, 57 (2013) (citing Mayfield v. State, 302 Md. 624, 632 (1985)). One of the requirements inherent in a defendant's right to a jury trial is a unanimous verdict.
This Court has held that an analysis of a mistrial motion in a deadlock situation "depends on the circumstances of the particular case." Browne v. State, 215 Md. App. 51, 57 (2013) (citing Mayfield v. State, 302 Md. 624, 632 (1985)). c. Analysis
The State responded that the photographs were admissible because photographing a pretrial defendant's appearance is not intrusive, and is, in fact, within the State's power. The State cited to Browne v. State, 215 Md. App. 51 (2013), in which this Court held that taking a buccal swab of a pretrial detainee did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The State reasoned that if DNA could be taken from a pretrial detainee, then something less intrusive, such as photographing a defendant's appearance, would also be permissible.
STANDARD OF REVIEWJudge Deborah Eyler, writing for this Court, in Browne v. State, 215 Md. App. 51, 57 (2013), succinctly set forth our task in the appeal before us: We review the denial of a mistrial motion for abuse of discretion. Dillard v. State, 415 Md. 445, 454 (2010)). It is within the trial judge's discretion to require an apparently deadlocked jury to continue deliberating or to declare a mistrial.
An appellate court will not reverse the denial of a mistrial motion absent a clear abuse of discretion (see Simmons v. State, 436 Md. at 212; Browne v. State, 215 Md.App. 51, 57 (2013)), and certainly will not reverse simply because it might have ruled differently. See Nash v. State, 439 Md. 53, 67 (2014) (citations omitted); accord Winston v. State, 235 Md.App. at 570.
Indeed, we have said that "declaring a mistrial when a jury is not hopelessly deadlocked undermines judicial efficiency," and "it is essential that deadlocked jurors be allowed to continue deliberating when the deadlock may properly be broken, but not when it is likely that the deadlock will be broken by coercion of a holdout juror (or more than one holdout jurors)." Browne v. State, 215 Md.App. 51, 73 (2013); see also Thomas v. State, 113 Md.App. 1, 8-12 (1996) (observing that the standard for appellate review of a trial judge's decision to allow a jury to continue to deliberate, rather than declare mistrial, is abuse of discretion; noting that "great deference" should be accorded to the judge's determination), cert. denied, 345 Md. 237 (1997). Here, the court received two notes on the first and second days of deliberations, both of which came at the end of the workday.
Indeed, we have recognized that "declaring a mistrial when a jury is not hopelessly deadlocked undermines judicial efficiency" and "it is essential that deadlocked jurors be allowed to continue deliberating when the deadlock may properly be broken, but not when it is likely that the deadlock will be broken by coercion of a holdout juror (or more than one holdout jurors)." Browne v. State, 215 Md. App. 51, 73 (2013). Having considered the totality of the circumstances surrounding the mistrial motions, we are persuaded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the appellants' mistrial motions and permitting the jury to continue deliberating.
"It is within the trial judge's discretion to require an apparently deadlocked jury to continue deliberating or to declare a mistrial." Browne v. State, 215 Md. App. 51, 57 (2013) (citing Mayfield v. State, 302 Md. 624, 632 (1985)). A trial court abuses its discretion when it is "well removed from any center mark imagined by the reviewing court and beyond the fringe of what that court deems minimally acceptable."
Whether the trial judge abused his or her discretion in denying a mistrial motion in a deadlock situation depends on the circumstances of the particular case." Browne v. State, 215 Md. App. 51, 57 (2013) (citing Mayfield v. State, 302 Md. 624, 632 (1985)). We review the denial of a mistrial motion for abuse of discretion.
Whether the trial judge abused his or her discretion in denying a mistrial motion following a discovery dispute depends upon the circumstances of the particular case. Browne v. State, 215 Md. App. 51, 57 (2013). Maryland Rule 4-263 addresses discovery in the circuit court and provides, in pertinent part, that the State shall provide to the defense, without the necessity of a request, all exculpatory information concerning the defendant or impeachment information concerning a State's witness.