Law Commons^™

Comment: Maryland State Drone Law Puts Residents At Risk Of Privacy Intrusions From Drone Surveillance By Law Enforcement Agencies, Wayne Hicks

University of Baltimore Law Forum

As technology rapidly advances, society is becoming more efficient and interconnected than ever before. Unmanned Aircraft Systems ("UAS"), more frequently referred to as "drones," have taken on an increasingly involved role in the progression towards a more interconnected society. For example, drones are presently capable of improving our ability to monitor potentially devastating storms, improving wildlife conservation efforts, increasing efficiency in agriculture, transporting goods to underdeveloped countries, and providing several forms of vital assistance to law enforcement.

Although the potential for drones appears promising, the advancements of drone capabilities have been met with increasing concerns regarding the government's ability to …

Recent Development: Givens V. State: Preservation Of Allegedly Inconsistent Jury Verdicts In A Criminal Trial Must Be Made By Objection Before The Verdicts Are Rendered Final And The Jury Is Dismissed, Nicholas Mastracci

University of Baltimore Law Forum

The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that a defendant waives review of any issue as to allegedly inconsistent verdicts by failing to object before the verdicts become final and the court discharges the jury. Givens v. State, 449 Md. 433, 486, 144 A.3d 717, 748 (2016). Although the defendant in this case did not request plain error review, the court stated that the alleged inconsistent verdicts were not clear and obvious; therefore the four-factor plain error test was not met. Id. at 482, 144 A.3d at 746.

On November 15, 2011, several people including Dominic Givens ("Givens"), pulled up …

Recent Development: Immanuel V. Comptroller Of Maryland: The Maryland Public Information Act's Financial Information Exemption And The Uniform Disposition Of Abandoned Property Act's Publication Provision Do Not Allow For Disclosure Of Information Beyond What Is Explicitly Permitted, Jason C. Parkins

University of Baltimore Law Forum

The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that information beyond the scope required under the Uniform Disposition of the Abandoned Property Act's publication provision cannot be disclosed in response to a request for information made under the Maryland Public Information Act. Immanuel v. Comptroller of Maryland, 449 Md. 76, 97-98, 141 A.3d 181, 194 (2016). The court also held that the information required to bze published under the Abandoned Property Act may not be ordered by value, because such ordering would reveal personal financial information. Id. at 97, 141 A.3d at 194. Lastly, the court held that the intermediate appellate …

University Of Baltimore Law Forum Volume 47 No. 2 (Spring 2017)

University of Baltimore Law Forum

No abstract provided.

Beyond The First Amendment: What The Evolution Of Maryland's Constitutional Free-Speech Guarantee Shows About Its Intended Breadth, Anthony W. Kraus

University of Baltimore Law Forum

Most Maryland lawyers are vaguely aware that Maryland's Declaration of Rights contains its own guarantee of free speech that is worded differently from the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. What the Declaration of Rights actually says about free speech, however, and what can be inferred from its distinctive phrasing and legislative history, are not matters that have received much particularized attention. Decisions of Maryland's courts routinely state that Article 40 of the Declaration of Rights - the principal source of state free-speech rights - is construed in pari materia with the First Amendment, which, as a practical matter, …

Recent Development: Seley-Radtke V. Hosmane: The Standard Of Proof Requirement In A Purely Private Defamation Action For An Individual Asserting A Common Law Conditional Privilege Is Preponderance Of The Evidence, Makeda Curbeam

University of Baltimore Law Forum

The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that a party seeking to overcome a common law conditional privilege in a purely private defamation suit must do so by a preponderance of the evidence. Seley-Radtke v. Hosmane, 450 Md. 468, 474, 149 A.3d 573, 576 (2016). The court also held that evidentiary issues not addressed by the court of special appeals are not subject to review by the court of appeals. Id. at 510, 149 A.3d at 598 (citing Md. R. 8- 131(b)(1)). Further, the court held that prejudicial evidence irrelevant to a claim is not admissible at trial. Seley-Radtke, 450 …

Recent Development: Smallwood V. State: A Writ Of Actual Innocence Is Not Available To Convicted Defendants Who Are Guilty Of Their Crime, Even If They Are Deemed Not Criminally Responsible, Andrew Siske

University of Baltimore Law Forum

The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that convicted defendants must allege that they did not actually commit the crime resulting in their conviction to be eligible to petition for a writ of actual innocence under section 8-301 of Criminal Procedure Article of the Maryland Code. Smallwood v. State, 451 Md. 290, 323, 152 A.3d 776, 795 (2017). Additionally, the court ruled that a claim of not criminally responsible is not equivalent to an assertion of actual innocence as required by the court's interpretation of the actual innocence statute. Id.

Dameron Smallwood ("Smallwood") was physically and verbally abused by his …

Book Review: Proposals For Creating A Realistic Family Court For The Future, Theresa Furnari, Melissa View

University of Baltimore Law Forum

During one of the snowstorms in the winter of 2016, I sat before the fireplace and read Divorced from Reality: Rethinking Family Dispute Resolution, by Jane C. Murphy and Jana B. Singer. Because I know the authors and their wealth of experience in family law, as well as their sincere interest in improving the effectiveness of the family law court, I was delighted when asked to share my opinion of the book. As a Family Magistrate in a high volume court, it never ceases to amaze me of the variety of issues the court is confronted with on a …

Recent Development: Robinson V. State: Decriminalization Of Possession Of Less Than Ten Grams Of Marijuana Does Not Eliminate A Police Officer's Probable Cause To Search Vehicles From Which The Odor Of Marijuana Emanates, Virginia J. Yeoman

University of Baltimore Law Forum

The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that decriminalization does not equate to legalization of marijuana; therefore, a law enforcement officer has probable cause to search a vehicle if the officer detects the odor of marijuana coming from the vehicle. Robinson v. State, 451 Md. 94, 99, 152 A.3d 661, 664-65 (2017). The court explained that the odor of marijuana establishes probable cause to believe the vehicle contains contraband or evidence of a crime. Id. at 99, 152 A.3d at 665. Thus, there was probable cause to search the vehicles in each of the combined cases. Id. at 137, 152 …

Stop Asking Which Came First, The Jail Or The Criminal - Start Reinvesting In Justice In Maryland, Bridget Lowrie

University of Baltimore Law Forum

The numerous cries for reform of the United States criminal justice system in recent time are not without merit based on an examination of the prison population. Despite violent crime being at record low rates in the United States, the prison population has expanded tremendously. On the global stage, the United States is the leader in incarceration rates. The United States has more people incarcerated than any other country, including China, Russia, and India. Looking at a local level, Maryland is not immune to this trend. In Maryland, while violent crime is on the decline, the amount of time an …

Recent Development: Sellman V. State: Absent Additional Circumstances, Consent To A Vehicle Search In A High Crime Area Does Not Create Reasonable Suspicion To Justify A Terry Frisk Of A Passenger Who Displays Nervous Behavior; Theft From A Vehicle Does Not Automatically Infer That An Individual Is Armed, Ashley N. Simmons

University of Baltimore Law Forum

The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that, under the totality of the circumstances, a law enforcement officer did not have reasonable suspicion to conduct a Terry frisk of a passenger during a traffic stop. Sellman v. State, 449 Md. 526, 544, 144 A.3d 771, 782 (2016). The court ruled that a police department policy authorizing officers to conduct Terry frisks based on consent to search a vehicle violates the Fourth Amendment. Id. at 557, 144 A.3d at 790. The court further held that the crime of theft from vehicles does not imply the possession of a deadly weapon. Id. …

The Regression Of "Good Faith" In Maryland Commercial Law, Lisa D. Sparks

University of Baltimore Law Forum

“Good faith,” in the affirmative or as the absence of bad faith, has always been a challenge to define and judge as a matter of conduct, motive, or both. Different tests apply a subjective standard, an objective standard, or even a combination of the two. Some parties may be held to different expectations than others. This determination of good faith has always been fact-driven and somewhat transcendental. Until recently, however, the question invoked a construct of fairness, resting on a two-pronged metric, at least insofar as several key titles of the Maryland Uniform Commercial Code were concerned. Since June 1, …

Comment: Maryland State Bank: The Responsible Solution For Fostering The Growth Of Maryland's Medical Cannabis Program, David Bronfein

University of Baltimore Law Forum

In 2013, Maryland passed its initial medical cannabis law.1 Although seemingly a success in the medical cannabis reform movement, the law only allowed for “academic medical centers” to participate in the program.2 In essence, an academic medical center could dispense medical cannabis to patients who met the criteria for participation in their research program.3 The success of this type of program structure was a concern for medical cannabis advocates,4 and the concerns were validated when no academic medical centers decided to participate.5 As a result of this lackluster program, the General Assembly responded by passing a bill6 during the 2014 …

Whose Bright Idea Was This Anyway? The Origins Of Judicial Elections In Maryland, Yosef Kuperman

University of Baltimore Law Forum

This paper describes how Maryland switched from the life-tenured appointed judiciary under its original Constitution to an elected judiciary. It traces the history of judicial selection from the appointments after 1776 through the Ripper Bills of the early nineteenth century to the eventual adoption of judicial elections in 1850. It finds that the supporters of judicial elections had numerous complex motives that boiled down to trying to make the Judiciary less political but more publically accountable. At the end of the day, Marylanders trusted elections more than politicians.

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: State V. Waine: A Court May Reopen A Closed Post Conviction Proceeding To Address A Challenge To An Advisory Only Jury Instruction, Ashley N. Nelson-Raut

University of Baltimore Law Forum

The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that advisory only jury instructions are not harmless error and the Unger v. State precedent should be applied retroactively. State v. Waine, 444 Md. 692, 122 A.3d 294 (2015). In addition, the court held that a defendant’s motion to reopen his or her post-conviction case after the Unger decision met the “interests of justice” standard required for reconsideration of the constitutionality of the defendant’s conviction.

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.

Comment: De Facto Parents In Maryland: When Will The Law Recognize Their Rights?, Michelle E. Kelly

University of Baltimore Law Forum

Rachel and Allison were in a committed same-sex relationship beginning in 1990. Although they never legally married, the couple decided to manifest their love by having a child in 2001. Rachel and Allison both agreed that Rachel would carry the child by way of an anonymous sperm donor. Their child, Kevin, was born on September 3, 2002. Allison was present in the delivery room and even cut the umbilical cord. From the time Kevin was born until the summer of 2009 when Rachel and Allison ended their relationship, the couple equally raised and cared for Kevin, sharing all major and …

Recent Development: Preston V. State: Reasonable Protective Housing Provided To A State's Witness Is Not A "Benefit" Within The Meaning Of Maryland Criminal Pattern Jury Instruction 3:13, Andrew Middleman

University of Baltimore Law Forum

The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that a “benefit,” as used in Maryland Criminal Pattern Jury Instruction 3:13, is “something akin to” a direct, quid pro quo exchange for a State’s witness’s testimony. Preston v. State, 444 Md. 67, 85, 118 A.3d 902, 913 (2015). The court of appeals further held that reasonable protective housing provided to a State’s witness, by itself, is not a “benefit.” Id. at 85, 104, 118 A.3d at 913, 924. The court also concluded that moving a State’s witness into protective housing, at State expense, was “not unreasonable.” Id. Accordingly, the court affirmed the …

Recent Development: Sibug V. State: When A Defendant Is Found Incompetent, A Retrial Does Not Renew His Responsibility To Raise The Issue Of Competency; A Judicial Determination Of Competency Is Required Upon Retrial, Allison Terry

University of Baltimore Law Forum

The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that a defendant who was previously found incompetent must be given a new competency hearing at retrial. Sibug v. State, 445 Md. 265, 319, 126 A.3d 86, 116 (2015). In addition, the defendant does not have to raise the issue of competency anew.

Recent Development: Seal V. State: Pursuant To § 10-402(C)(2)'S Exception To The Wiretap Ban, An Individual Is Not Under The Supervision Of An Investigative Or Law Enforcement Officer When Intercepting An Oral Communication, Absent Restrictions On Equipment Use And Some Subsequent Contact., Ashley N. Simmons

University of Baltimore Law Forum

The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that a detective providing recording equipment to an individual, absent any limitations for use and no interaction thereafter, did not amount to the individual acting under supervision of an investigative or law enforcement officer. Seal v. State, 447 Md. 64, 80, 133 A.3d 1162, 1172 (2016). The court found that guidelines must be given to the person conducting the wiretapping, as well as at least some contact to monitor the progress. Id. at 79-81, 133 A.3d at 1172.

Recent Development: Toms V. Calvary Assembly Of God, Inc.: Noise Resulting From Legally Permissable Fireworks Does Not Constitute An Abnormally Dangerous Activity, And The Application Of Strict Liability Is Inappropriate., Jason C. Parkins

University of Baltimore Law Forum

The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that noise emitted from a lawful fireworks display did not constitute an abnormally dangerous activity; therefore, the parties were not subject to strict liability. Toms v. Calvary Assembly of God, Inc., 446 Md. 543, 569, 132 A.3d 866, 881 (2016).

Recent Development: A Guy Named Moe, Llc V. Chipotle Mexican Grill Of Colo., Llc: A Foreign Limited Liability Company Lacking Compliance With State Registration Requirements May Maintain Suit After Infirmity Is Cured; The Company Must Also Meet The "Person Aggrieved" Requirement Of Standing., Alicia M. Kuhns

University of Baltimore Law Forum

The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that a foreign limited liability company, though unregistered at the time of filing, could resolve its lack of compliance and maintain its action for judicial review. A Guy Named Moe, LLC v. Chipotle Mexican Grill of Colo., LLC, 447 Md. 425, 447, 135 A.3d 492, 505 (2016). The court further held that one does not have standing as a “person aggrieved” based solely on the desire to eliminate business competition. Id. at 453, 135 A.3d at 508.

Baltimore Law Clubs: A Tradition Promoting The Integrity Of The Bar Through Scholarship And Congeniality, Stuart R. Berger, Bryant S. Green

University of Baltimore Law Forum

Since before the civil war, lawyers and judges in Baltimore have had a tendency to organize informal, intimate, and exclusive clubs for the purpose of promoting congeniality and scholarship.1 Although this Anglo-American tradition traces back to as early as the sixteenth century,2 the institution of law clubs in the United States appears to have been a unique, local phenomenon until the 1960s and 1970s.3 Today, this tradition continues in Baltimore City, which currently plays host to no fewer than eight individual law clubs, with many more existing throughout the state. These law clubs offer their members the opportunity to pursue …

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.

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: Sieglein V. Schmidt: Pursuant To § 1-206(B) Of The Estates And Trusts Article, Artificial Insemination Encompasses In Vitro Fertilization Using Donated Sperm; A Court May Use The Goldberger Factors To Determine Voluntary Impoverishment; A Trial Court Can Issue A Permanent Injunction For Harassment Based On § 1-203(A) Of The Family Law Article., Virginia J. Yeoman

University of Baltimore Law Forum

The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that the term “artificial insemination” includes in vitro fertilization using donated sperm, and that a consenting husband is presumed to be the father of the child born as a result of the procedure. Sieglein v. Schmidt, 447 Md. 647, 652, 136 A.3d 751, 754 (2016). The court also held that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in finding the husband to be voluntarily impoverished or in issuing a permanent injunction based on harassment. Id.

Recent Development: Scarfield V. Muntjan: A Jury Demand In An Amended Complaint, Which Is Dismissed For Failure To State A Claim, Does Not Revive A Previously Waived Jury Demand For Counts In The Original Complaint, Thomas Andrew Barnes

University of Baltimore Law Forum

The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that, while a waived jury trial may be revived by an amended complaint in which new and substantive issues are raised, the dismissal of a new count raised in an amended complaint will not revive the originally waived demand for jury trial.

Recent Development: Garner V. State: The Unit Of Prosecution For Use Of A Handgun In The Commission Of A Crime Of Violence Is The Crime Of Violence, Not The Victim Or Criminal Transaction; The Evidence Corroborated Two Separate Handgun Convictions; And The Trial Court's One-Year Sentence For The Second Use Of A Handgun Conviction Was Illegal, Ashlyn J. Campos

University of Baltimore Law Forum

The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that the unit of prosecution for Section 4-204 of the Maryland Code, Criminal Law Article (“section 4-204”) is the individual crime of violence, not the victim or criminal transaction. Garner v. State, 442 Md. 226, 230, 112 A.3d 392, 394 (2015). The court of appeals further held that separate handgun convictions are permitted when evidence supports multiple crimes or felonies. Id. at 244, 112 A.3d at 402. Finally, the court held that a trial court does not possess the discretion to impose a sentence less than the mandatory five year minimum prescribed by …