Court of Appeals Webcast Archive

 

 

January 2019 Schedule
Date Docket # Title
01-08-2019 No. 40 State of Maryland v. Harry Malik Robertson

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) What is the appropriate standard of review of a trial court’s ruling that a party has “opened the door” to otherwise inadmissible evidence? 2) Applying the appropriate standard of review, did CSA err by substituting its judgment for the trial court’s determination that the Respondent had opened the door to otherwise inadmissible evidence?
01-08-2019 No. 44 Michele Gallagher v. Mercy Medical Center, Inc.

Issues – Torts – 1) Does the One Satisfaction Rule bar recovery in a lawsuit against a subsequent tortfeasor when no judgment was entered in a prior lawsuit and the prior lawsuit was resolved by settlement and a release that did not release claims against the subsequent tortfeasor? 2) Did the trial court err in granting summary judgment and did CSA err in affirming the summary judgment because both courts failed to follow Maryland precedent regarding the One Satisfaction Rule and retarding the effect of release and settlement of claims?  
01-07-2019 No. 42 Cushman & Wakefield of Maryland, Inc., et al. v. DRV Greentec, LLC

Issues – Contract Law – 1) Is a third-party beneficiary without rights to enforce a contract unless he is a “primary party in interest” to the contract, or does Maryland follow the modern interpretation allowing a third party to enforce a contract right if it is appropriate to effectuate the intention of the parties? 2) When a successor landlord expressly assumes a lease, and expressly represents that he is assuming “all” obligations of that lease, and has actual notice and knowledge of the lease provisions benefitting intended third parties beneficiaries, is he also assuming obligations of the original landlord to the intended third-party beneficiaries?  
01-07-2019 No. 43 Travis Howell v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Is duress a defense to constructive criminal contempt? 2) Did CSA err in finding that Petitioner failed to meet the “some evidence” requirement to generate the defense of duress?  
01-07-2019 No. 39 Patricia Moore v. Fernwood Mobile Home Park, Inc.

Issues – Civil Procedure – 1) Should the appeal of a District Court judgment in a tenant holding over case have been on the record? 2) Is a judgment in favor of an entity that does not exist valid or a nullity? 3) Did the circuit court on de novo appeal make other significant errors of law?  
01-04-2019 No. 31 State of Maryland v. Purnell Shortall

Issues – Criminal Procedure – 1) Did CSA misapply the Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), standard when it reversed the post-conviction court’s determination that counsel was not ineffective for failing to object to a continuing violation jury instruction? 2) Assuming CSA correctly determined that trial counsel was ineffective, did CSA err by ordering the vacating of Respondent’s convictions instead of remanding for a new trial?  
01-04-2019 No. 38 D.L. v. Sheppard Pratt Health System, Inc., et al.

Issues – Health General – 1) Did CSA err in concluding that Petitioner’s challenge to her involuntary admission was moot and, alternatively, that no exception to the mootness doctrine applied? 2) Did CSA err in concluding that the applicability of the “capable of repetition yet evading review” exception to the mootness doctrine was not preserved for appellate review?  
01-03-2019 Bar Admissions
 
01-03-2019 No. 37 Anne George et al. v. Baltimore County, Maryland et al.

Issue – Local Government – Can a government entity eliminate the right of taxpayers “to bring a lawsuit in this State to prevent waste or unlawful use of public property and funds”, State Ctr., LLC v. Lexington Charles Ltd. P’ship, 438 Md. 451 (2014), by not increasing property tax rates for some period of time?  
01-03-2019 No. 36  State of Maryland v. Nicholas Heath

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Does the introduction of evidence that opens the door to the admission of “other act” evidence operate to give the other act evidence “special relevance,” thereby relieving a party seeking to introduce the other act evidence of the burden to establish “special relevance” under Md. Rule 5-404 and State v. Faulkner, 314 Md. 630 (1989)? 2) What is the correct standard of review? 3) Applying the appropriate standard of review, did CSA err first, by holding that counsel cannot open the door based upon comments made in an opening statement and second, by substituting its judgment for the trial court’s determination and making a factual finding about the intent and effect of Respondent’s counsel’s comment in opening statement and whether it opened the door to otherwise inadmissible “other act” evidence? 4) Did CSA err in concluding that admission of a comment in Respondent’s recorded statement was not harmless, where Petitioner made no further mention of the statement at trial?  
01-03-2019 No. 45 Lawrence R. Carver v. RBS Citizens, N.A., et al.

Issue – Civil Procedure – Did CSA err by dismissing Petitioner’s appeal as premature?  
December 2018 Schedule
Date Docket # Title
11-30-2018 No. 32 In re: G.R.

Issue – Criminal Procedure – Where a robbery victim whose house keys are stolen takes the reasonable and prudent action of replacing the locks that corresponded to the stolen keys, are the costs associated with replacing those compromised locks a “direct result” of the robbery for the purposes of ordering restitution?
11-30-2018 No. 27 Celso Monterroso Romera v. Josefa Perez

Issues – Family Law – 1) Did CSA err in finding no error and upholding the trial court’s denial of Special Immigrant Juvenile (“SIJ”) status, even though the trial court stated that it was applying the incorrect “clear and convincing evidence” standard of proof regarding a neglect finding in an SIJ case? 2) Did CSA err in finding that the trial court had committed no error in its findings that there was insufficient evidence to prove neglect, and therefore no neglect under the law, in the context of an SIJ case?  
11-30-2018 No. 35 Joan Floyd, et al. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore

Issue – Zoning & Planning – Did Petitioners sufficiently plead taxpayer standing to allow their challenge to the enactment of new comprehensive zoning maps to be adjudicated and did the trial court err when it granted the motion to dismiss for lack of taxpayer standing?  
11-29-2018 Bar Admissions
 
11-29-2018 No. 24

Normal Quality (1Mbps)

Higher Quality (5Mbps)
State of Maryland v. Adnan Syed

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Did CSA err in holding that defense counsel pursuing an alibi strategy without speaking to one specific potential witness violates the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of effective assistance of counsel? 2) Did CSA draw itself into conflict with Curtis v. State, 284 Md. 132 (1978), when it found that Respondent waived his ineffective assistance of counsel claim based on trial counsel’s failure to challenge cell-tower location data, where the claim implicated the fundamental right to effective counsel and was therefore subject to the statutory requirement of knowing and intelligent waiver? 
11-29-2018 No. 30 Commissioner of Labor and Industry v. The Whiting-Turner Contracting Company

Issues – Labor & Employment – 1) Did Petitioner correctly determine that Respondent’s failure to follow the shoring-tower manufacturer’s instructions to use gooser braces in assembling a shoring tower supporting a concrete slab, which resulted in serious injury and death, constituted a recognized hazard within the meaning of § 5-104(a) of the Labor & Employment Article (“L&E”)? 2) Did Petitioner correctly determine that Respondent’s use of an undersized spacer beam in the upper support system of a shoring tower constituted a recognized hazard within the meaning of L&E § 5-104(a)?  
11-29-2018 No. 33 State of Maryland v. Patrick Joseph Thomas a/k/a Patrick Joseph Patrick

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) As a matter of first impression, may a seller of heroin be convicted of a murder-related offense where the buyer of the heroin dies after ingesting it? 2) Did CSA assume facts not in evidence and otherwise usurp the role of the fact-finder when it held that, as a matter of law, the State presented insufficient evidence of gross negligence and causation to sustain Respondent’s manslaughter conviction?  
November 2018 Schedule
Date Docket # Title
11-05-2018 AG No. 11 (2017 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Melinda Maldonado
 
11-05-2018 AG No. 12 (2017 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Jonathan David Robbins
 
11-05-2018 No. 28 Gregory Smith v. Wakefield, LP

Issues – Real Property – 1) Can a single sentence in a form residential lease grant a landlord an extra 9 years to bring a claim against a tenant? 2) Does Md. Code Ann., Real Prop. (“RP”) § 8-208(d)(2) prohibit the extension of the statute of limitations to 12 years in a residential lease? 3) Even if RP § 8-208 does permit an extension of the statute of limitations, must the extension be reasonable? 4) If a reasonable extension is permitted, is it reasonable to extend the statute of limitations in a month-to-month residential lease from 3 years to 12 years?  
11-05-2018 No. 26 Motor Vehicle Administration v. James R. Nelson

Issue – Transportation Law – Where the administrative law judge found that a motorist, after being properly advised via the DR-15 Advice of Rights form, expressly refused to take a blood-alcohol concentration test, was the motorist correctly suspended for a test refusal under Transportation Article § 16-205.1, even though the detaining officer did not deviate from the Advice of Rights form and explicitly offer the motorist the option of choosing between a breathalyzer test and a blood test?  
11-02-2018 Bar Admissions
 
11-02-2018 AG No. 16 (2016 T.)

AG No. 21 (2017 T.)
Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Christal Elizabeth Edwards
 
11-02-2018 AG No. 20 (2017 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Benjamin Jeremy Woolery
 
11-02-2018 AG No. 36 (2017 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Jerome P. Johnson
11-02-2018 No. 18 Gerald Hyman v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Did CSA err in holding that sexual offender registration is not a direct consequence of a third-degree sex offense? 2) Did CSA incorrectly assume that Petitioner understood the consequences of sexual offender registration despite never being advised? 3) Did CSA err by giving Petitioner an illegal sentence derived from an ambiguous plea agreement? 4) Where Petitioner filed a 2006 pro se coram nobis petition that did not include the claims raised in his 2013 petition, did CSA err when it found that Petitioner had not waived the 2013 claims?  
October 2018 Schedule
Date Docket # Title
10-10-2018 AG No. 22 (2017 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Scott A. Conwell
 
10-10-2018 No. 22 WV DIA Westminster, LLC v. Mayor  & Common Council of Westminster

Issues – Local Government – 1) When a local government conducts a quasi-judicial hearing and vote, can it prevent judicial review by recasting its ultimate written decision as legislative in nature? 2) Does the phrase “regardless of zonal classification” in Westminster Code § 164-133B permit use of zonal classification as a guideline? 3) Does Westminster Code §164-188J(1) permit the Council to rely on an informal trend that is not part of “the general plan, the City’s capital improvements program or other applicable City plans and policies”? 4) Is the proper remedy vacatur or outright reversal?  
10-10-2018 No. 19 Malik Small v. State of Maryland

Issue – Criminal Law – Did CSA err in holding that the pretrial identification of Petitioner, which the Court determined to be the product of an impermissibly suggestive procedure, was reliable?  
10-09-2018 AG No. 15 (2017 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Neil Warren Steinhorn
 
10-09-2018 No. 17 Michael Pacheco v. State of Maryland 

Issue – Criminal Law – In light of Norman v. State, 452 Md. 373 (2017), Robinson v. State, 451 Md. 94 (2017), and Md. Code, Crim. Law § 5-601.1(a), does the smell of burnt marijuana emanating from a parked vehicle that contains a single occupant, plus the observation of suspected marijuana in an amount that is obviously less than ten grams, provide probable cause to arrest the occupant?  
10-09-2018 No. 69 (2017 T.) Mark Armacost v. Reginald J. Davis

Issues – Torts – 1) In a medical negligence case, is it reversible and prejudicial error to instruct the jury using instructions that frame negligence in the context of a “reasonable person”? 2) When a trial court perceives that a civil jury is deadlocked on the third day of deliberations, may the court give a neutral and non-coercive modified Allen charge that neither invades the province of the jury nor favors either party? 3) Does an appellate court abuse its discretion when it reverses a trial court on grounds not raised at trial nor briefed by the appellant?  
10-04-2018 AG No. 58 (2017 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Andrew Ndubisi Ucheomumu
 
10-04-2018 No. 20 State of Maryland v. Kevin Sewell

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Should this Court grant review to resolve a conflict among opinions in CSA by adopting a principle of narrow construction with respect to the marital communications privilege? 2) Did the trial court properly exercise its discretion by allowing the State to introduce text messages that Respondent sent to his wife’s cell phone?  
10-04-2018 No. 21 The Town of Forest Heights v. The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission, et al.

Issues – Local Government – 1) Did the trial court err when it invalidated two Resolutions of Petitioner that, collectively, annexed into the Town approximately 737 acres of land without the consent of the owners of 25% of the assessed value of the lands annexed by each Resolution, where all the annexed lands were tax-exempt, were unoccupied, and where, consistent with City of Salisbury v. Banker’s Life, 21 Md.App. 396 (1974), the owners of the land were not required to provide their consents to the annexations? 2) Did the trial court err when it determined that a portion of the Town’s Annexation Plan violates Md. Code Local Government Article, § 4-104(b), and Land Use Article, § 17-303(a), and, as a result, ordered that the Town may not exercise law enforcement on any land owned by Respondent?  
10-03-2018 Bar Admissions
 
10-03-2018 AG No. 53 (2017 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Yolanda Massaabioseh Thompson
 
10-03-2018 No. 15 Wesley Cagle v. State of Maryland

Issue – Criminal Procedure – Does a trial court err in precluding a criminal defendant from using trial testimony video in closing argument?  
10-03-2018 No. 16 Karen McDonell v. Harford County Housing Agency

Issues – Administrative Law – 1) Did Respondent err in terminating a voucher without affording procedural due process guaranteed under federal and MD administrative common law? 2) Does a MD charge of second degree assault constitute “violent criminal activity” and grounds for voucher termination? 3) Did Respondent err in interpreting its policy to require notice within two weeks of an unplanned and unforeseen absence from the housing rented with the voucher? 4) Is breach of a financial obligation that had been cured adequate grounds for voucher termination? 5) Did Respondent err in failing to explicitly consider all relevant facts before voucher termination?  
10-03-2018 No. 13 Craig Williams v. State of Maryland

Issue – Criminal Procedure – Did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying a motion for new trial where the court gave a pattern jury instruction and, after the jury rendered its verdict, the court, prosecution, and defense all acknowledged that the instruction erroneously omitted an element of the offense for which the defendant was convicted?  
September 2018 Schedule
Date Docket # Title
09-13-2018 Honoring the Clerk of the Court, Mrs. Bessie Decker, on the Occasion of Her Retirement
 
09-13-2018 No. 5 Maryland Department of the Environment v. County Commissioners of Carroll County, Maryland

Issues – Environmental Law – 1) Does MDE’s permit action unlawfully hold the County responsible for unregulated nonpoint source runoff and for stormwater discharges by independent third parties that never enter into or discharge from the County’s Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (“MS4”)? 2) Has MDE unlawfully subjected the County to overly stringent requirements in the Permit by classifying the County’s system as “Medium” rather than as “Small” and by subjecting it to the same requirements as “Large” systems? 3) Has MDE acted arbitrarily and capriciously by refusing to allow the County to fulfill its Permit obligations in part by using water quality trading as a compliance method? 4) Has MDE violated state law by incorporating and amending Md. Code Ann., Land Use § 1-406 through the Permit?  
09-13-2018 No. 7 Frederick County, Maryland v. Maryland Department of the Environment

Issues – Environmental Law – 1) Has MDE exceeded its authority by imposing conditions in the Permit that exceed the “maximum extent practicable” standard mandated by the Clean Water Act? 2) Has MDE acted unlawfully by imposing requirements in the Permit that are impossible to achieve within the five-year permit term? 3) Does MDE’s permit action unlawfully hold the County responsible for unregulated nonpoint source runoff and for stormwater discharges by independent third parties that never enter into or discharge from the County’s Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (“MS4”)? 4) Has MDE improperly subjected the County to overly stringent requirements in the Permit by classifying the County’s system as “Medium” rather than as “Small” and subjecting it to the same requirements as “Large” systems? 5) Has MDE acted arbitrarily and capriciously by refusing to allow the County to fulfill a portion of its Permit obligations using water quality trading as a compliance method?  
09-13-2018 No. 11 David Leander Ford v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Did the trial court err in allowing the State to introduce evidence of the victim’s character for peacefulness, in a homicide case, when, in his opening statement, the defendant clearly stated that the victim was the first aggressor and suggested that evidence would be introduced to prove it? 2) What is the correct standard for determining whether a defendant’s conduct is too ambiguous or equivocal to be admissible as evidence of “consciousness of guilt”? 3) Did the trial court err in allowing, as evidence of consciousness of guilt, the State’s witness to testify about Petitioner’s reaction to being told that he had to leave her home?  
09-12-2018 No. 10 Bradford Owusu v. Motor Vehicle Administration

Issues – Transportation – 1) Is it a violation of due process and a failure to “fully advise” a driver of the administrative penalties that shall be imposed for refusing a breath test pursuant to Transp. §16-205.1 when, after reading the MVA’s DR-15 advice form, a police officer’s oral restatement of the penalties for failing and refusing a breath test omits the most severe mandatory penalty for refusal? 2) Is the DR-15 form’s failure to advise suspected drunk drivers of the length of time the ignition interlock would be required in the event of a refusal – one year – a violation of due process and a failure to “fully advise” a driver of the administrative penalties that shall be imposed for refusing a breath test pursuant to Transp. §16-205.1?  
09-12-2018 No. 4 Philip Paul Ingram, Jr. v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Does § 7-104 of the Criminal Law Article provide independent authority for a court to order restitution in a theft case or, alternatively, is a court’s authority to order restitution constrained by the restitution provisions in Title 11 of the Criminal Procedure Article? 2) Where a defendant is convicted of theft, may a sentencing court order the defendant to make restitution when neither the victim nor the State has requested restitution?  
09-12-2018 No. 12 Ronald Cornish v. State of Maryland

Issue – Criminal Law – Where a criminal defendant has satisfied all the pleading requirements entitling him to a hearing on his motion for a new trial pursuant to Md. Rule 4-331 (c) and (f) and the trial court summarily denies the motion without a hearing, does an appellate court err in affirming the trial court by ruling on the merits of the motion?
09-12-2018 No. 14 State of Maryland v. Brandon Payton

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Where Respondent made specific objections to reopening the State’s case for more fingerprint-expert testimony only on the grounds that the additional fingerprint testimony would be the last thing that the jury would hear and that it would be presented in isolation, were defense counsel’s claims that reopening would be “unfair” and “extremely prejudicial” or the trial court’s statement that the reopening could “very well … be grounds for appeal” sufficient to preserve a judicial-partiality claim? 2) Did CSA err in concluding that the trial court abused its discretion in reopening the State’s case sua sponte? 3) Where the reopening of the State’s case was based on the trial court’s incorrect assumption that there had been no testimony linking Respondent to the handprint, was any error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the testimony was cumulative of the testimony of three prior witnesses linking Respondent to the handprint?  
09-07-2018 No. 9 Rodney Lee Agnew v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Law –Was a recorded communication on a cell phone between Petitioner and an unidentified speaker intercepted in violation of the Md. Wiretap Statute and erroneously admitted at trial when there was no enumerated exception for its admissibility?
09-07-2018 No. 3 Baltimore City Detention Center v. Michael Foy

Issue – Correctional Services – Where, due to an equipment malfunction, a correctional officer’s penalty-increase meeting with the appointing authority was not contemporaneously recorded, did CSA err in concluding that the recording failure was incurable, even though the Department otherwise complied with all of the statutory procedures for terminating a correctional officer for misconduct?  
09-07-2018 No. 6 Wilfredo Rosales v. State of Maryland

Issue – Criminal Law – Were the complainant's prior convictions for committing violent crimes in aid of racketeering activity admissible for the purposes of impeachment under Md. Rules 5-609?  
09-06-2018 Bar Admissions

 
09-06-2018 AG No. 23 (2017 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Steven Douglas Shemenski

 
09-06-2018 No. 34 April Ademiluyi v. Chizoba Egbuonu, et al.

Election appeal.
09-06-2018 No. 8 Darryl Nichols v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Procedure – 1) Can the law of the case doctrine bar a claim of an illegal sentence for failure to properly raise the issue on appeal, despite Maryland Rule 4-345’s provision that a court may correct an illegal sentence at any time? 2) Is Petitioner’s total sentence of 80 years of imprisonment, which was imposed at resentencing, an illegal increase from his previous total sentence of life with all but 50 years suspended?  
09-06-2018 Misc. No. 1 William Price, et al. v. Ralph M. Murdy, et al.

Certified Question from the United States District Court for the District of MarylandJ

Question - Whether the Maryland Consumer Loan Law, Md. Code Ann. Com. Law § 12-302's licensing requirement is an "other specialty" subject to Maryland's twelve year limitations period under [CJP] 5-102(a)(6)?
 
09-06-2018 No. 2 State of Maryland v. Steven Young

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Did CSA err in determining that Respondent preserved a claim that the trial court erred in excluding written prescriptions for controlled dangerous substances where the record does not contain a copy of the written prescriptions or any proffer or any information that could support a finding that they were authentic? 2) If preserved, did the trial court properly exercise its discretion in excluding the prescriptions because there was not sufficient evidence that they were authentic? 3) Did CSA err in determining that prescriptions offered to show that controlled dangerous substances were obtained “by prescription or order from an authorized provider acting in the course of professional practice” did not constitute hearsay on the basis that they were not offered “to prove the truth of the matter asserted”?