Court of Appeals Webcast Archive

 

SEPTEMBER TERM 2020 Webcasts

September 2020 Oral Arguments


Webcasts are made available to the general public for informational purposes only and do not constitute an official record of court proceedings. Rebroadcast of this transmission is prohibited without the express permission of the Court of Appeals, which can be obtained by contacting the Division of Government Relations and Public Affairs at 410-260-1488.

 

October 2020 Schedule
Due to the COVID-19 emergency, these oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference. Please be advised that for the duration of the use of a videoconferencing platform for oral arguments, the recordings posted here are the official recordings of the proceedings.
Date Docket # Title
10-01-2020 AG No. 19 (2019 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Ferdinand Uchechukwu Ibebuchi
 
10-01-2020 No. 6 Lolita D. Fowlkes v. Shabbir Ahmed Choudhry

Issue – Torts – Did CSA err in its formulation and application of Maryland law regarding what a wrongful death plaintiff must prove in order to recover damages for the loss of household services that would have been provided by Petitioner’s deceased adult child?  
10-01-2020 No. 3 State  of Maryland v. Latoya Bonte Elzey

Issue – Criminal Law – Was CSA wrong in holding that a jury may not be instructed to find that the victim abused the defendant and the defendant suffers from Battered Spouse Syndrome before considering expert testimony on the syndrome?  
September 2020 Schedule
Due to the COVID-19 emergency, these oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference. Please be advised that for the duration of the use of a videoconferencing platform for oral arguments, the recordings posted here are the official recordings of the proceedings.
Date Docket # Title
09-15-2020 Misc. No. 4 In the Matter of K.E.

State Board of Law Examiners denial of an ADA request matter. 
09-15-2020 No. 74 (2019 T.) State of Maryland v. Kennard Carter

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Does the Maryland Transit Administration’s (“MTA”) practice of fare inspection on the Light Rail comply with the Fourth Amendment? 2) If fare inspection does not comply with the Fourth Amendment, did the discovery of an open warrant for Respondent’s arrest nevertheless attenuate the violation under Utah v. Strieff, 136 S.Ct. 2056 (2016), where any unconstitutionality of the MTA’s fare inspection practice was not previously established?  
09-15-2020 No. 70 (2019 T.) Remonia B. Chaplin, et al. v. University of Maryland Medical System Corporation

Issues – Torts – 1) Does the exception to the board certification requirement in the Health Care Malpractice Claims Act, Md. Code § 3-2A-02(c)(2)(ii)(B)(2)(B) of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, which excuses board-certification at § 3-2A-02(c)(2)(ii)(B) for an attesting health care provider who has “taught medicine in the defendant’s specialty or a related field of health care,” require the attesting health care provider to have “taught medicine” to students who are “in the defendant’s specialty?” 2) Does the board certification requirement at § 3-2A-02(c)(2)(ii)(B) apply when the defendant is not a natural person? 3) Does a claim for absence of informed consent when made in the same proceeding with a claim for malpractice require compliance with the certificate requirements in the Act, including the board-certification provisions (and its exceptions) at § 3-2A-02(c)(2)(ii)(B) and (2)(B)?  
09-14-2020 No. 64 (2019 T.) State of Maryland v. Darrayl John Wilson

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Regardless whether a collusive marriage confers spousal testimonial privilege, is evidence that the defendant-spouse arranged to marry in order to suppress the witness-spouse’s testimony under the cloak of privilege sufficient to satisfy the “corrupt means” element of the obstruction of justice and witness tampering statutes? 2) As a matter of first impression in Maryland, is a party to a collusive marriage precluded from invoking the spousal testimonial privilege? 3) If Respondent’s convictions are affirmed, does his conviction and sentence for witness tampering merge into his conviction and sentence for obstruction of justice, where both convictions are predicated upon one act – marrying his longtime girlfriend and the mother of his two children?  
09-14-2020 No. 69 (2019 T.) Montgomery County, Maryland v. Anthony G. Cochran and Andrew Bowen

Issues – Workers’ Compensation – 1) Did CSA err in holding that, when calculating a claimant’s hearing loss under Md. Code § 9-650(b)(3) of the Labor & Employment Article, the decibels deducted from the total average hearing loss should be calculated by counting the number of years between the date the claimant turned 50 and the date the claimant retired? 2) Did CSA err in reversing a factual finding of the Workers’ Compensation Commission as to whether Respondent Bowen suffered a “disablement” given that 1) the Commission’s factual finding is “presumed to be correct”; 2) the issue of whether the claimant suffered a disablement was not raised at the Commission hearing; and 3) there was no evidence put on by Petitioner before the trial court to disturb the Commission’s finding?  
09-14-2020 No. 75 (2019 T.) Lawrence Ervin Montague v. State of Maryland

Issue – Criminal Law – Is artistic expression, in the form of rap lyrics, that does not have a nexus to the alleged crime relevant as substantive evidence of guilt?  
09-11-2020 Misc. No. 15 (2019 T.) In the Matter of the Application of Antonette Yvonne Jefferson for Admission to the Bar of Maryland

 
09-11-2020 No. 68 (2019 T.) Anne Arundel County, Maryland and Rodney Price v . Michael H. Reeves

Issues – Torts – 1) As a matter of first impression does Md. Code § 11-110 of the Courts & Judicial Proceedings Article limit the amount of damages recoverable for negligently causing the death of a pet? 2) Did CSA err in finding sufficient evidence of gross negligence?
09-10-2020 AG No. 20 (2019 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. John T. Riely

 
09-10-2020 No. 73 (2019 T.) Eric Wise v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Did CSA err in affirming the admission of a statement by a witness with memory loss as a prior inconsistent statement, in conflict with Corbett v. State, 130 Md.App. 408, cert. denied, 359 Md. 31 (2000)? 2) Did CSA err in expanding the circumstances under which hearsay is admissible under Rule 5-802.1(a) to include statements containing a “material” inconsistency with the witness’s testimony?  
09-10-2020 No. 62 (2019 T.) Saint Luke Institute, Inc. v. Andre Jones

Issues – Health General – 1) Does Petitioner have standing to raise the constitutional right of privacy on behalf of a mental health patient? 2) If Petitioner has the requisite standing, must the court first determine whether the constitutional right of privacy of the person whose records are sought has been superseded prior to any release of mental health records or can the court immediately proceed to the question of release without first finding that the right of privacy has been superseded? 3) If the constitutional right of privacy is required to be ruled upon by the court to determine if it has been superseded, then what are the standards to be applied by the court when a private party litigant rather than a state agency is making the request? 4) If the determination is made that records may be released, does the party requesting the release of mental health records have the burden of identifying to the court the nature of the information being sought for release from the mental health records prior to the court undertaking its in camera review?