Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
Recent Development: Peterson V. State: Limitations On Defense Cross-Examination Are Permitted When The Testimony Lacks A Factual Foundation, Is Overly Prejudicial, Or Has Not Been Adequately Preserved, Meghan E. Ellis
University of Baltimore Law Forum
The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that the defendant’s right to confrontation was not violated when the defense was precluded from cross-examining a witness about hallucinations and his potential sentence prior to entering into a plea agreement. Peterson v. State, 444 Md. 105, 153-54, 118 A.3d 925, 952-53 (2015). The court found that the defendant failed to preserve the issue of a witness’s expectation of benefit with respect to pending charges, and failed to show sufficient factual foundation for a cross-examination regarding the expectation. Id. at 138-39, 118 A.3d at 944. In addition, the court found that, although not …
Recent Development: Williams V. State: A Confession Is Voluntary Unless The Defendant Unambiguously Invokes His Constitutional Right To Remain Silent Or The Confession Is Obtained Through Coercion Or Inducement, Pascale Cadelien
University of Baltimore Law Forum
The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that “I don’t want to say nothing. I don’t know,” is an ambiguous invocation of the right to remain silent. Williams v. State, 445 Md. 452, 455, 128 A.3d 30, 32 (2015). The court reasoned that the defendant’s addition of “I don’t know” to his initial assertion “I don’t want to say nothing” created uncertainty about whether he intended to invoke his right to remain silent. Id. at 477, A.3d at 44. This allowed a reasonable officer to interpret his statement as an “ambiguous request to remain silent.” Id. Furthermore, the officers’ implication …
Recent Development: Jackson V. State: Successive Post-Conviction Petitions Are Not Barred By The Doctrine Of Res Judicata Or Maryland Rule 4-704; A Petition For Dna Testing Will Be Denied If The Evidentiary Threshold For A Wrongful Conviction Claim Is Not Met., Kayla M. Dinuccio
University of Baltimore Law Forum
The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that the doctrine of res judicata and Maryland Rule 4-704 do not bar successive DNA petitions. Jackson v. State, 448 Md. 387, 406, 139 A.3d 976, 987 (2016). The court further held that denying Jackson’s petition for DNA testing without a hearing under Maryland Rule 4-709 was proper, because none of his assertions would have produced exculpatory evidence. Id. at 411, 139 A.3d at 990.
Recent Developments: Sharp V. State: Despite Not Formally Objecting, Defense Counsel Properly Preserved The Issue Of Whether The Circuit Court Inappropriately Weighed Defendant's Decision Not To Plead Guilty At Sentencing; The Circuit Court Did Not Impermissibly Consider Defendant's Rejection Of The Plea Offer At Sentencing., Colin Campbell
University of Baltimore Law Forum
The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that defense counsel’s statements conveyed an objection to the circuit court’s perceived consideration of the defendant’s decision not to plead guilty at sentencing. Sharp v. State, 446 Md. 669, 113 A.3d 1089 (2016). As a result, the court held that defense counsel sufficiently preserved the issue for appellate review. Id. at 684, 113 A.3d at 1098. Ultimately, though, the circuit court’s statements at sentencing did not give rise to the inference of an impermissible consideration. Id. at 701, 113 A.3d at 1108.
Recent Development: Counts V. State: Absent The Defendant's Consent, The State May Not Amend The Charging Document If The Amendment Changes The Character Of The Offense, Kristin E. Shields
Recent Development: Counts V. State: Absent The Defendant's Consent, The State May Not Amend The Charging Document If The Amendment Changes The Character Of The Offense, Kristin E. Shields
University of Baltimore Law Forum
The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that amending a charge from theft of property “with a value of less than $1,000” to theft of property “with a value of at least $1,000 but less than $10,000” without the defendant’s consent changed the character of the offense. Counts v. State, 444 Md. 52, 55, 118 A.3d 894, 895 (2015). Therefore, the court held that such action was prejudicial per se because it interfered with the defendant’s right to defend himself by not giving notice of the exact charges against him, thereby violating Maryland Rule 4-204.