Maryland Courts

SCHEDULE OF ORAL ARGUMENTS

September Term, 2013

 

Thursday, February 6, 2014:

Bar Admissions

No. 61  James Szwed v. State of Maryland

Issue - Criminal Law - Did the trial court err in accepting Petitioner's purported waiver of jury trial and in proceeding with a bench trial?

Attorney for Petitioner: David P. Kennedy
Attorney for Respondent: Robert Taylor, Jr.

No. 54 Chadwick Michael Nalls v. State of Maryland

Issues - Criminal Law - 1) Must Petitioner's jury trial waiver and subsequent conviction in a bench trial because the trial judge failed to determine and announce on the record that Petitioner was knowingly and voluntarily waiving his right to a jury trial as expressly required by Md. Rule 4-246? 2) Is the reversal of a lawful conviction the only appropriate sanction for a non-substantive violation of Rule 4-246(b)? 3) Did CSA err in finding that Petitioner's conviction for third degree sexual assault should be vacated?

Attorney for Petitioner: Brian L. Zavin
Attorney for Respondent: Robert Taylor, Jr.

No. 71  Devon Edward Morgan v. State of Maryland

Issue – Criminal Law – 1) Did the trial court err in accepting Petitioner’s waiver of jury trial without finding and announcing that the waiver was knowing and voluntary?

Attorney for Petitioner: Michael R. Braudes
Attorney for Respondent: Sara Page Pritzlaff

No. 95 Justin Allen Melvin v. State of Maryland

Issue – Criminal Law – Must Petitioner’s jury trial waiver and subsequent conviction in a bench trial be set aside because the trial judge failed to determine and announce on the record that Petitioner was voluntarily waiving his right to a jury trial as required by Md. Rule 4-246?

Attorney for Petitioner: Brian L. Zavin
Attorney for Respondent: Sara Page Pritzlaff

 

Friday, February 7, 2014:

No. 46  Wardell Monroe Brooks v. State of Maryland

Issues - Criminal Law - 1) Where the defense seeks to impeach a witness at trial pursuant to MD Rules 5-613 and 5-616 using a prior inconsistent statement to police, must the extrinsic evidence of the prior inconsistent statement take the form of testimony by the police officer who took the statement or may the properly authenticated police report be used? 2) What is the appropriate standard of review for a trial court's ruling concerning the admission of impeachment evidence? 3) Did the trial court err by admitting testimony by a nurse, accepted as an expert in forensic nursing examinations with an emphasis in sexual assault”, concerning the victim's injuries? 4) Did CSA err in holding that even if the nurse's testimony was inadmissible, the error was harmless? 5) Did the trial court err in failing to merge false imprisonment into first degree rape for sentencing purposes?

Attorney for Petitioner: Jeffrey M. Ross
Attorney for Respondent: Susannah E. Prucka

No. 55 Blackburn Limited Partnership d/b/a Country Place Apartments, et al. v. Alicia Daley Paul

Issues - Torts - 1) Did CSA abrogate 80 years of law holding that property owners owe no duty to trespassers onto their property? 2) Did CSA err in concluding that evidence of a violation of regulations created a duty from a property owner to a trespasser? 3) Has CSA improperly applied COMAR regulations retroactively contrary to the legislative history and the specific language of the regulations?

Attorney for Petitioner: Margaret Fonshell Ward
Attorney for Respondent: Timothy F. Maloney

No. 57 Kevin J. Shannon, et al. v. Mafalda Fusco, et al.

Issues - Torts - 1) Did CSA err in vacating the judgment of the trial court on the grounds that the trial court improperly excluded expert testimony concerning the material risks of the drug Amifostine in an informed consent action? 2) Was summary judgment and/or judgment in Petitioner's favor mandated as a matter of law on the informed consent claim? 3) Did CSA err in failing to consider the relevance and/or prejudicial effect of the expert's limited testimony on remand?

Attorney for Petitioner: Michelle R. Mitchell
Attorneys for Respondent: Michael Belski and Megan E. Owleszewski

 

Monday, February 10, 2014:

No. 58 Joshua Tripp Ellsworth v. Baltimore Police Department

Issue - Public Safety (LEOBR) - Does the requirement to disclose “any exculpatory evidence”, pursuant to the Law Enforcement Officer's Bill of Rights (LEOBR), MD Pub. Safety § 3-104(n)(1), require a police department to disclose evidence impeaching a prosecution witness?

Attorney for Petitioner: Clarke F. Ahlers
Attorney for Respondent: Daniel C. Beck

No. 56  Bonita H. Marshall v. Safeway, Inc.

Issues - Labor & Employment - 1) Did CSA err in holding that the Wage Payment Law does not allow suit against an over-garnishing employer? 2) Did CSA err in holding that Petitioner was paid all wages due her despite the over-garnishment of her wages because the excess was turned over to a creditor? 3) Did CSA err in holding that the availability of a remedy against the garnishor in the District Court precludes any remedies against an over-garnishing employer under the Wage Payment Law? 4) Did CSA err in accepting Respondent's testimony regarding changed policy despite its refusal to comply with discovery requests and where the trial court failed to rule on Petitioner's motion to compel discovery and where CSA stated that the discovery sought was relevant only to numerosity and that Petitioner otherwise failed to allege that the lack of discovery prevented her from supporting her motion for class certification? 5) Did CSA err in failing to draw from Respondent's failure to produce its records the inference that the records would have shown that Respondent had not changed its practices? 6) Did CSA err in affirming the denial of class certification? 7) Did the trial court err in not ruling on Petitioner's motion to compel discovery and its ultimate denial of the motion to compel as moot in light of its denial of class certification? 8) Did CSA err in affirming the denial of Petitioner's claims for declaratory and injunctive relief? 9) Did CSA err in holding that Petitioner's claim for monetary damages was mooted by the tender to her of full monetary relief, even though she rejected and returned the tender?

Attorney for Petitioner: Richard T. Seymour
Attorney for Respondent: William F. Ryan

No. 23  David Bernstein v. William Ely

Issues - Constitutional Law - 1) Did the lower court err in denying Petitioner's motion to vacate judgment and dismiss the complaint in a summary ejectment matter when there was evidence of irregularities in service of process, that defective service prevented Petitioner from raising defenses to the complaint, and that even if service of process is deemed sufficient Petitioner had no actual notice of the proceeding until after trial? 2) Did the lower court err when, upon granting Petitioner's motion to hear the appeal on the record, it denied Petitioner's request that the argument be postponed until a transcript could be forwarded to the court and Petitioner could file an appellant's memorandum as required by Md. Rule 7-113?

Attorney for Petitioner: Zafar Shah
Arguing for Maryland Mult-Housing Association, Inc. as Amicus: Stuart Kaplow

 

Tuesday, February 11, 2014:

AG No. 55 (2012 Term)  In the Matter of the Petition for Reinstatement of Louis Peter Tanko, Jr. to the Bar of Maryland

AG No. 49 (2012 Term)  Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Joseph Lee Friedman

Attorney for Petitioner: Lydia E. Lawless
Attorney for Respondent: Joseph Lee Friedman

No. 53   Joseph Leon Hall, Jr. v. State of Maryland

Issues - Criminal Law - 1) Did CSA err in concluding that Petitioner's argument regarding a “scientific or investigative techniques” jury instruction was unpreserved for appellate review despite defense counsel's objection to the instruction during trial? 2) To what extent is Evans v. State, 174 Md.App. 548, 922 A.2d 620 (2007) still good law? 3) Did the trial court abuse its discretion in providing the “anti-CSI effect” instruction? 4) Did CSA err in regarding any error by the trial court as harmless beyond a reasonable doubt?

Attorney for Petitioner: Michael T. Torres
Attorney for Respondent: Robert Taylor, Jr.

No. 59  Victoria Falls Committee for Truth in Taxation, LLC, et al. v. Prince George's County, Maryland

Issues - Taxation - 1) When a request is made to a county to create a voluntary Special Taxing District (STD) under MD Code Ann., Art. 24 § 9-1301(d)(1), by the requisite supermajority of property owners, and subsequent property ownership changes reduce the voluntary supermajority to a minority before the request is acted upon by the county, may the county nevertheless approve the STD on the basis of the original request? 2) When a voluntary STD is proposed and approved, and special obligation bonds are issued by a county to fund infrastructure for a particular development, may the county exclude from the STD some of the properties in the development in order to satisfy the supermajority requirement in MD Code Ann., Art. 24 § 9-1301(d)(1) given that under § 9-1301(c)(2)(i) the purpose of the taxing authority is to fund such infrastructure for a “defined geographic region within the county”?

Attorney for Petitioner: David W. Brown
Attorney for Respondent: Donald A. Rea

 

On the day of argument, counsel are instructed to register in the Clerk’s Office no later than 9:30 a.m. unless otherwise notified.

After February 11, 2014 the Court will recess until March 6, 2014.

 

BESSIE M. DECKER

CLERK