Prue, Derell Len v. State

*This is a per curiam opinion. Under Rule 1-104, the opinion is not precedent within the
rule of stare decisis nor may it be cited as persuasive authority.
Circuit Court for Frederick County
Case No. C-10-CR-23-000600
UNREPORTED
IN THE APPELLATE COURT
OF MARYLAND
No. 2343
September Term, 2024
______________________________________
DERELL LEN PRUE
v.
STATE OF MARYLAND
______________________________________
Graeff,
Ripken,
Eyler, Deborah S.
(Senior Judge, Specially Assigned),
JJ.
______________________________________
PER CURIAM
______________________________________
Filed: October 14, 2026

‒Unreported Opinion‒
Following a bifurcated jury trial in the Circuit Court for Frederick County, Derell
Len Prue, appellant, was convicted of possession of a regulated firearm after having been
convicted of a crime of violence. His sole contention on appeal is that the trial court plainly
erred in failing to reinstruct the jury on the presumption of innocence and the State’s burden
of proof before they deliberated on the bifurcated prohibited possession of a firearm charge.
For the reasons that follow, we shall affirm.
Appellant was charged with first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit first-degree
murder, use of a firearm in the commission of a crime of violence and possession of a
regulated firearm after having been convicted of a crime of violence. 	Prior to trial, the
court granted appellant’s motion to bifurcate the prohibited possession count so that the
jury would not be prejudiced by evidence of his prior conviction for a crime of violence
when deliberating on the other counts. Appellant was tried on all counts before the same
jury. On Friday, September 13, 2024, at the close of all the evidence with respect to the
first three counts, the court instructed the jury on the elements of those counts as well as
on the State’s burden of proof and the presumption of innocence. 	The jury returned on
Monday, September 16, 2024, and began deliberations. 	Several hours later, the jury
returned with a not guilty verdict as to the first three counts.
Immediately thereafter, the court proceeded to the second phase of the bifurcated
trial. 	Both sides waived opening, and the State introduced evidence that appellant had
previously been convicted of second-degree assault in 2011. The State then rested, and the
court instructed the jury on the elements of the prohibited possession charge. 	The court
did not, however, reinstruct the jury on the presumption of innocence or the State’s burden

‒Unreported Opinion‒
2
of proof. 1 The jury ultimately convicted appellant of that charge, and the court sentenced
him to a term of fifteen years’ imprisonment, with all but five years suspended, followed
by five years’ probation. This appeal followed.
On appeal, appellant contends that the court erred in not reinstructing the jury on
the presumption of innocence and the State’s burden of proof before it submitted the
prohibited possession of a firearm count to the jury. Acknowledging that he did not object
or request that the court reinstruct the jury, he asks this Court to review his claim for plain
error.
Although this Court has discretion to review unpreserved errors pursuant to
Maryland Rule 8-131(a), the Supreme Court of Maryland has emphasized that appellate
courts should “rarely exercise” that discretion because “considerations of both fairness and
judicial efficiency ordinarily require that all challenges that a party desires to make to a
trial court’s ruling, action, or conduct be presented in the first instance to the trial court[.]”
Ray v. State, 435 Md. 1, 23 (2013) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Therefore, plain
error review “is reserved for those errors that are compelling, extraordinary, exceptional or
fundamental to assure the defendant of a fair trial.” Savoy v. State, 218 Md. App. 130, 145
(2014) (quotation marks and citation omitted). 	Under the circumstances presented, we
decline to overlook the lack of preservation and thus do not exercise our discretion to
engage in plain error review of this issue. See Morris v. State, 153 Md. App. 480, 506-07
1 The jury had been allowed to take a written copy of the court’s September 13 jury
instructions into the jury room for deliberations earlier in the morning. 	The record does
not indicate whether they still had access to the written instructions when deliberating on
the prohibited possession of a firearm count.

‒Unreported Opinion‒
3
(2003) (noting that the five words, “[w]e decline to do so[,]” are “all that need be said, for
the exercise of our unfettered discretion in not taking notice of plain error requires neither
justification nor explanation” (emphasis omitted)).
JUDGMENT 	OF 	THE 	CIRCUIT
COURT 	FOR 	FREDERICK
COUNTY AFFIRMED. COSTS TO
BE PAID BY APPELLANT.