Law Commons^™

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: 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: 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: In Re Tyrell A.: Trial Courts Generally May Not Order Restitution To An Individual Whose Voluntary Participation In A Crime Or Delinquent Act Results In Injury, Andrew Middleman

University of Baltimore Law Forum

The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that Sections 11-601(j) and 11- 603(a) of the Maryland Code, Criminal Procedure Article, do not authorize trial courts to order restitution to an individual who suffers an injury while voluntarily participating in a crime or delinquent act, “absent exceptional circumstances.” In re Tyrell A., 442 Md. 354, 383, 112 A.3d 468, 485 (2015). Accordingly, the court of appeals vacated a juvenile court’s restitution order to an individual who suffered nasal injuries while participating in the common law offense of affray.

Recent Development: State V. Hunt: A Petitioner Who Files For A Writ Of Actual Innocence Has The Right To A Hearing Based On Newly Discovered Evidence When The Pleading Substantially Complies With Md. Crim. Proc. § 8-301 And Md. Rule 4-332, Daniel M. Weir

University of Baltimore Law Forum

The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that the trial court erred in denying a hearing on a petition for a writ of actual innocence based on newly discovered evidence, when petitioners substantially complied with the pleading requirements under Section 8-301 of the Maryland Code, Criminal Procedure Article (“section 8-301”) and Maryland Rule 4-332.

Recent Developments: Criminal Procedure Maryland Rule 782 (C) May Not Be Used By Prosecution As A Plea Bargain Substitute - State V. Limbo, An Imaginary Opinion By The Court Of Appeals Of Maryland, Harold D. Norton

University of Baltimore Law Forum

No abstract provided.