SCHEDULE OF ORAL ARGUMENTS
September Term, 2014
Wednesday, May 6, 2015:
AG No. 22 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Tawana Shephard
Attorney for Petitioner: JaCina N. Stanton
Attorney for Respondent: Robert W. Hesselbacher, Jr.
AG No. 14 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Melodie Venee Shuler
Attorneys for Petitioner: Amy S. Paulick and Lydia E. Lawless
Attorney for Respondent: Melodie Venee Shuler
No. 82 Frank D. Scarfield, Sr., et al. v. Peter A. Muntjan, et al.
Issue – Civil Procedure – Does the filing of an amended complaint which presents a new claim and jury demand revive a previously waived right to a jury trial where the new claim is dismissed for a failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted?
Attorney for Petitioner: Andrew J. Brenner
Attorney for Respondent: Peter A. Muntjan (pro se)
No. 80 Dontae Preston v. State of Maryland
Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Is the “witness promised benefit” jury instruction part of a special class of instructions, as CSA held, such that it remains always discretionary even when it is supported by some evidence? 2) Did the lower court abuse its discretion in declining to give the instruction where an eyewitness provided some evidence that she exchanged her cooperation with the State for free, protective housing? 3) Did the lower court err as a matter of law in declining to instruct the jury as defense counsel requested? 4) Does the record show that there was a “promise” or “testimony” that was “as a result of” a promise? 5) Is protective housing provided to a witness in a first degree murder case the type of “benefit” contemplated by the “witness promised benefit” pattern instruction?
Attorney for Petitioner: Daniel Kobrin
Attorney for Respondent: Gary E. O'Connor
AG No. 5 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Dennis Alan Van Dusen
Attorney for Petitioner: Dolores O. Ridgell
Attorney for Respondent: Due H. Tran
No. 83 Mark G. Hranicka v. Chesapeake Surgical LTD., et al.
Issue – Workers’ Compensation –Whether the Maryland Workers’ Compensation Commission has the authority to generate its own administrative rule to relate a claim back to the date it was electronically filed, for limitations purposes.
Attorney for Petitioner: L. Teri Spradlin-Dahn
Attorney for Respondent: Sean E. Smith
No. 85 George Varriale v. State of Maryland
Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Whether the Fourth Amendment applies to law enforcement’s retention and use, for general investigatory purposes, of Petitioner’s DNA profile collected for a limited purpose? 2) If applicable, whether the Fourth Amendment permits the police to use Petitioner’s DNA profile for a purpose that exceeded the limited terms of consent police relied on to collect Petitioner’s DNA samples? 3) Did Petitioner consent to the collection and subsequent use of his DNA profile?
Attorney for Petitioner: Stephen B. Mercer
Attorney for Respondent: Robert Taylor, Jr.
AG No. 6 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Gerald Katz
Attorney for Petitioner: Raymond A. Hein
Attorney for Respondent: Peter F. Axelrad
No. 84 Maryland Department of State Police v. Teleta Dashiell
Issues – State Government – 1) Did the Department of State Police properly invoke the Maryland Public Information Act’s (MPIA) exemptions for personnel records and records that are confidential under other law – here, the Law Enforcement Officers’ Bill of Rights – to deny a request for the internal affairs records of an investigation into the conduct of a specifically identified state trooper? 2) May a complaining victim be considered the subject of an investigation such that she is a “person in interest” under the MPIA?
Attorney for Petitioner: Ronald M. Levitan
Attorney for Respondent: Mary Gardner
AG No. 18 (2013 T.) & AG No. 3 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. John Hamilton, Jr.
Attorney for Petitioner: Amy S. Paulick
Attorney for Respondent: John T. Hamilton, Jr.
AG No. 34 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Shauntese Curry Trye
Attorney for Petitioner: Marianne J. Lee
Attorney for Respondent: Granville Templeton, III
No. 90 State of Maryland v. Peter Sutro Waine
Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Did the trial court retain the discretion, granted by Criminal Procedure Article § 7-104, to determine whether the interests of justice would be served by reopening Respondent’s prior post conviction proceeding to litigate an unwaived challenge to “advisory” jury instructions? 2) Should a circuit court consider a challenge to instructions under Unger v. State, 427 Md. 383 (2012), on a case by case basis to determine whether there is “a reasonable likelihood” that the jurors understood the court’s 1977 instructions as allowing them to convict Respondent on proof less than beyond a reasonable doubt? 3) Where the Unger majority ignored the underpinnings of the doctrine of stare decisis, and, in any event, was “plainly wrong” when it held that Stevenson v. State, 289 Md. 167 (1980) and Montgomery v. State, 292 Md. 84 (1981) had set forth a new interpretation of Article 23 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights over thirty years earlier and when it held that Stevenson and Montgomery were to be applied retroactively, should Unger be overruled?
Attorney for Petitioner: Cathleen C. Brockmeyer
Attorneys for Respondent: Howard Cardin and Erin Murphy
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 May 12, 2015 the Court will recess until June 3, 2015.
BESSIE M. DECKER