More Categories

Rule 4-314 – Defense of Not Criminally Responsible

May 13, 2021 | Criminal Prodcedure, Maryland

(a) Bifurcation of Trial.

(1)Who May Request. If a defendant has entered pleas of both not guilty and not criminally responsible by reason of insanity and has elected a jury trial, the defendant or the State may move for a bifurcated trial in which the issue of criminal responsibility will be heard and determined separately from the issue of guilt.
(2)Time for Filing Motion. A motion for a bifurcated trial shall be filed no later than 15 days before trial, unless otherwise ordered by the court.
(3)Granting of Motion.

(A) The court shall grant a motion made by the defendant unless it finds and states on the record a compelling reason to deny the motion.
(B) The court may grant a motion made by the State if it finds and states on the record (i) a compelling reason to bifurcate the trial and (ii) that the defendant will not be substantially prejudiced by the bifurcation.

Cross reference: See Treece v. State, 313 Md. 665 (1988). For victim notification procedures, see Code, Criminal Procedure Article, §§ 3-123 and 11-104.

(4)If a Plea of Guilty Is Entered. If the defendant has entered pleas of both guilty and not criminally responsible by reason of insanity and the court has accepted the guilty plea, there shall be a trial on the issue of criminal responsibility unless the State stipulates to a finding that the defendant is not criminally responsible. Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, the defendant may appeal from the judgment, but only on the issue of criminal responsibility.

Cross reference: Code, Courts Article, § 12-302(e).

Committee note: This Rule is not intended to affect a defendant’s right to seek review of a judgment entered pursuant to a guilty plea by application for leave to appeal.

(b) Procedure for Bifurcated Trial.

(1)Generally. For purposes of this Rule, a bifurcated trial is a single continuous trial in two stages.
(2)Sequence. The issue of guilt shall be tried first. The issue of criminal responsibility shall be tried as soon as practicable after the jury returns a verdict of guilty on any charge. The trial shall not be recessed except for good cause shown.
(3)Examination of Jurors. The court shall inform qualified jurors before examining them pursuant to Rule 4-312(e) that the issues of guilt or innocence and whether, if guilty, the defendant is criminally responsible will be tried in two stages. The examination of qualified jurors shall encompass all issues raised.
(4)Appointment of Alternate Jurors. The court shall appoint at least two alternate jurors, who shall be retained throughout the trial.
(5)Trial of Issue of Criminal Responsibility.

(A) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (B) or (C) of this subsection, the issue of criminal responsibility shall be tried before the same jury that tried the issue of guilt. Any juror who dies, becomes incapacitated or disqualified, or is otherwise discharged before the jury begins to deliberate in the criminal responsibility stage shall be replaced by an alternate juror in the order of selection.
(B) The defendant may move to have the issue of criminal responsibility tried without a jury by the judge who presided over the first stage of the trial. The court shall grant a motion made by the defendant unless it finds and states on the record a compelling reason to deny the motion.
(C) If an appellate court affirms the judgment of guilt but remands for a new trial on the issue of criminal responsibility, that issue shall be re-tried by a jury impaneled for the purpose or by the court pursuant to paragraph (B) of this subsection.
(6)Order of Proof

(A) Evidence of mental disorder or mental retardation as defined in Code, Criminal Procedure Article, § 3-109 shall not be admissible in the guilt stage of the trial for the purpose of establishing the defense of lack of criminal responsibility. This evidence shall be admissible for that purpose only in the second stage following a verdict of guilty.
(B) In the criminal responsibility stage of the trial, the order of proof and argument shall reflect that the defendant has the burden of establishing the lack of criminal responsibility. The defendant and the State may rely upon evidence admitted during the first stage and may recall witnesses.
(7)Motion by State. The State may move for judgment on the issue of criminal responsibility at the close of the evidence offered by the defendant. In ruling on the motion, the court shall consider all evidence and inferences in the light most favorable to the defendant. The court may grant the motion if it finds no legally sufficient evidence from which a rational trier of fact could find that the defendant was not criminally responsible.
(c) Closing Argument Absent Bifurcation. If the trial is not bifurcated, the order of closing argument shall be as follows:

(1) The State may argue issues relating both to guilt and criminal responsibility;
(2) The defendant may argue issues relating both to guilt and criminal responsibility;
(3) The State may rebut the argument made by the defendant; and
(4) If the State makes a rebuttal argument on the issue of criminal responsibility, the defendant may make a surrebuttal argument limited to that issue.

Md. Crim. Causes. 4-314

This Rule is new.

Adopted June 28, 1989, eff. July 1, 1989. Amended Dec. 4, 2007, eff. Jan. 1, 2008; Sept. 10, 2009, eff. Oct. 1, 2009; June 7, 2011, eff. July 1, 2011; April 9, 2018, eff. July 1, 2018.

HISTORICAL NOTES

2007 Orders

The December 4, 2007, order, in subsec. (b)(3), substituted “qualified jurors” for “prospective jurors” in two places.

2009 Orders

The September 10, 2009, order, in the cross reference following subsec. (a)(3)(B), inserted “For victim notification procedures, see Code, Criminal Procedure Article, §§ 3-123 and 11-104.

2011 Orders

The June 7, 2011, order replaced “Rule 4-312(d) with “Rule 4-312(e) in the first sentence of section (b)(3).

2018 Orders

The April 9, 2018 order, updated a statutory reference in section (b)(6)(A).