Smith v. State, 367 Md. 348

Summary

The Maryland Court of Appeals held that the prosecutor’s closing argument directly commented on Robert Allen Smith’s exercise of his privilege against self-incrimination. The court concluded that the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and ordered a new trial. The case concerned convictions arising from burglary, theft, conspiracy to obstruct justice, and malicious destruction of property.

Holdings

1. A prosecutor's remark is impermissible when it is susceptible of an inference by the jury that it should consider the defendant's silence as an indication of guilt. The prosecutor's statement asking what explanation had been given "by the defendant" directly commented on Smith's exercise of his privilege against self-incrimination.
2. The improper prosecutorial comment was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, and a new trial was required.
3. The court did not reach the Rule 4-215(e) issue because it resolved the constitutional-comment issue in Smith's favor.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the prosecutor's closing argument that the jury should consider what explanation had been given by the defendant for possessing the stolen property was an impermissible comment on Smith's failure to testify in violation of the Fifth Amendment and Article 22 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights.
2. Whether the prosecutorial comment was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
3. Whether Maryland Rule 4-215(e) required the trial court to advise Smith of a right to proceed pro se before requiring him to proceed with unwanted counsel.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded