Wolfe v. State, 218 Md. 449

Summary

The Maryland Court of Appeals held that the trial court committed reversible plain error by commenting on the strength of the State's case while advising an unrepresented defendant whether to testify. The court reversed the judgment and remanded for a new trial, declining to decide whether the refusal to appoint counsel violated due process. A dissent argued that the comments were not prejudicial and that the judgment should be affirmed.

Holdings

1. A trial court may inform an unrepresented defendant of the right to request an insufficiency-of-the-evidence motion, but it should not treat the motion as made unless the defendant or counsel actually requests it.
2. Although a trial court may advise a defendant that he is not required to testify and explain the legal consequences of remaining silent or waiving the privilege, it may not comment on the weight of the evidence or suggest that the defendant should testify.
3. The appellate court may correct plain, material error on its own motion when the error could not have been cured by the trial court, even though the defendant failed to object or move for a mistrial.
4. The court did not decide whether the refusal to appoint counsel denied due process because the case was being remanded for a new trial.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court committed reversible error by treating an unrequested motion for judgment of acquittal or insufficiency of the evidence as having been made and overruling it in the jury's presence.
2. Whether the trial court improperly commented on the weight of the State's evidence and suggested that the defendant testify while advising him of his right not to testify.
3. Whether the defendant's failure to object preserved the prejudicial-comment claim for appellate review.
4. Whether the refusal to appoint counsel denied the defendant due process.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded