Maryland Courts

SCHEDULE OF ORAL ARGUMENTS

September Term, 2016

 

Thursday, March 2, 2017:

Bar Admissions

No. 61 Grant Agbara Lewis v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) If an out-of-state witness is in Maryland pursuant to a summons issued by the witness’s home state, and an accompanying judicial order from that state as well as the governing Maryland statute explicitly grant the witness immunity from prosecution in Maryland, may a Maryland court nonetheless exercise jurisdiction over the witness’s prosecution? 2) Is immunity from prosecution waived by failing to file a pre-trial motion under Md. Rule 4-252?

Attorney for Petitioner: John N. Sharifi
Attorney for Respondent: Sarah P. Pritzlaff

No. 62 Deer Automotive Group, LLC t/a Liberty Ford v. Barbara Brown, et al.

Issue – Civil Procedure – Is an order of the trial court denying a petition to compel arbitration, the sole issue in a separately-docketed case, a final judgment when there is pending a previously-filed case in the same court addressing all the substantive issues between the same parties in the same transactions?

Attorneys for Appellant: Lee Bryan Rauch and Steven R. Freeman
Attorney for Appellee: Martin E. Wolf

No. 64 Miguel A. Fuentes v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Was the evidence legally insufficient to support Petitioner’s convictions where the convictions were contingent on Ms. R’s status as a “mentally defective” individual and the State failed to present evidence that she had been diagnosed with either mental retardation or a mental disorder? 2) Where Petitioner’s knowledge of Ms. R’s purported mental deficiency was a required element of both convictions, was it reversible error for the State to inform the jury at closing argument that Petitioner had admitted to taking advantage of her “mental diminished capacity” in an interview that was never admitted into evidence at trial? 3) Where Ms. R’s ability to understand the conduct of others and to communicate with others was central to the jury’s determination of whether she could be considered a “mentally defective” individual, did the trial court err in refusing to allow the defense to present employment performance evaluations that assessed both of these skills during her employment, when the sexual activity took place?

Attorney for Petitioner: Juan P. Reyes
Attorney for Respondent: Gary E. O'Connor

 

Friday, March 3, 2017:

No. 63 Jayson Amster v. Rushern L. Baker, County Executive for Prince George's County et al.

Issue – State Government – Does the invocation of the Commercial Exemption in the Md. Public Information Act eliminate the statutory bias favoring disclosure, judicial oversight of facts and efforts to facilitate access to non-commercial or publicly known information?

Attorney for Petitioner: Jayson L. Amster
Attorney for Respondent: Jared M. McCarthy

No. 65  State of Maryland v. Anthony Allen Crawley

Issue – Criminal Law – Did CSA improperly vacate Respondent’s corrected sentence, where the trial court, pursuant to Greco v. State, 427 Md. 477 (2012), corrected the illegality in Respondent’s sentence by the addition of a period of probation in order to effectuate the split sentence imposed in the case?

Attorney for Petitioner: Mary Ann Ince
Attorney for Respondent: Bradford C. Peabody

No. 68 Charles C. Reger v. Washington County Board of Education et al.

Issue – Workers’ Compensation – When a state employee is found to have a compensable injury under the Workers’ Compensation Act and is then found to be entitled to ordinary retirement disability benefits for a different injury, is it inappropriate to absolve the insurer of its liability under the Workers’ Compensation Act and thus prevent the injured worker from obtaining any recovery for a single injury because they recovered for a different injury?

Attorney for Petitioner: Benjamin T. Boscolo
Attorneys for Respondent: David A. Skomba and Barbara A. Thompson

 

Monday, March 6, 2017:

No. 70 Clarksville Residents Against Mortuary Defense Fund, Inc. et al. v. Donaldson Properties et al.

Issues – Zoning & Planning – 1) Was the Board required to make the considerations set forth in Section 130.C of the Zoning Regulations? 2) Did the Board satisfy the “adverse effects” test of Schultz v. Pritts when it failed to conduct an analysis based on the “ordinary or inherent adverse effects” of a Funeral Home? 3) Did the Board satisfy the “adverse effects” of Schultz v. Pritts when it approved the Funeral Home in spite of the surrounding Asian community’s deep-seated cultural aversion to the death industry? 4) Did the Board satisfy the “adverse effects” test of Schultz v. Pritts when it approved the removal of a natural forest along a Tier II stream to accommodate construction of the Funeral Home?

Attorney for Petitioner: J. Carroll Holzer
Attorneys for Respondent: Sang W. Oh and Barry M. Sanders

No. 72 Darrell Bellard v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Does Criminal Law Article, § 2-304 give criminal defendants the right to have a jury determine whether they should be sentenced to life with parole or life without the possibility of parole? 2) Is Maryland’s sentencing scheme for life without the possibility of parole unconstitutional?

Attorney for Petitioner: Julia C. Schiller
Attorney for Respondent: Todd W. Hesel

No. 71 Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. v. Saddlebrook West Utility Company, LLC et al.

Issues – Real Property – 1) Can the procedure for lien creation be read out of the Maryland Contract Lien Act? 2) Has the rule against perpetuities been eliminated in Maryland? 3) Does the holder of an interest in property have standing to challenge the grant of rights in that property to another party by the government?

Attorney for Petitioner: Aaron D. Neal
Attorney for Respondent: Bruce L. Marcus

 

Tuesday, March 7, 2017:

No. 74 Damar Brown v. State of Maryland

Issue – Criminal Procedure – Did CSA err in concluding that when the State charges misdemeanors by criminal information in the circuit court no preliminary hearing is required?

Attorney for Petitioner: Rosa Gross
Attorney for Respondent: Mary Ann Ince

 

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 March 7, 2017, the Court will recess until March 30, 2017.

 

BESSIE M. DECKER

CLERK