Court of Appeals Webcast Archive 2014 Term

 

Webcasts and the archived recordings of webcasts are made available to the general public for informational purposes only and do not constitute an official record of court proceedings. Recording or copying of any portion of the live webcast or the archived recording of a webcast is prohibited without the express permission of the Supreme Court, which can be obtained by contacting Government Relations and Public Affairs at 410-260-1488 or at communications@mdcourts.gov. Copies of the recorded audio of the proceedings are available from the Clerk upon request and payment of a $10.00 fee.
 
June 2015 Schedule
Date Docket # Title
06-04-2015 AG No. 56 (2013 T.)

AG Nos. 18 & 26
 		 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Melissa D. Gray
06-04-2015 Misc. No. 39 In the Matter of the Application of Omeed Tabiei for Admission to the Bar of Maryland
 
06-04-2015 No. 88 Shyquille Griffin v. Andrew Lindsey, et al.

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Do crime victims lack statutory authority to appeal from the denial of a motion for reconsideration under Maryland Code (2008, 2011 Supp.), Criminal Procedure Article § 11-103(e), thus depriving CSA of jurisdiction to review the trial court’s denial of Respondent’s motion for reconsideration of his request for restitution? 2) Did the trial court properly deny Respondent’s motion for reconsideration of his request for restitution from Petitioner, when the court had already accepted Petitioner’s guilty plea pursuant to a plea agreement, Petitioner had already performed his part of the plea agreement, and the court had already sentenced Petitioner? 3) Under the principles of Cuffley v. State, 416 Md. 568 (2010) and Baines v. State, 416 Md. 604 (2010), does a binding plea agreement prohibit restitution when it makes no mention of restitution and purports to be the “full and complete agreement of the parties”? 4) Does the trial court lack authority to grant a victim’s request for restitution if the victim does not request restitution until after the court has already accepted a plea agreement that does not include it? 5) When a court has already imposed a sentence that does not include restitution, would granting a victim’s request for restitution illegally increase the sentence?
06-04-2015 No. 89 Board of Trustees, Community College of Baltimore County v. Patient First Corporation

Issues – Torts – 1) Whether the trial court erred as a matter of law in awarding indemnification damages to Respondent related to its defense and settlement of claims against it for its own negligence, even though Petitioner did not expressly and unequivocally agree to indemnify Respondent for its own negligence? 2) Whether the trial court abused its discretion in allowing Respondent’s general counsel to testify to the reasonableness of the attorneys’ fees charged by outside counsel and clearly erred in awarding Respondent attorneys’ fees based on that testimony?
06-03-2015 Bar Admissions
 		  
06-03-2015 AG No. 9 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Kenneth Haley
 
06-03-2015 No. 87 Larry Cooper v. Melissa Rodriguez, et al.

Issues – Torts – 1) Is a correctional officer who acts without malice in performing discretionary acts within the scope of his public duties entitled to public official immunity? 2) Did the trial court properly strike the jury’s finding of gross negligence by the correctional officer where there was no evidence of an intentional failure to perform a duty or of reckless disregard for the life or property of another?
06-03-2015 No. 74 State of Maryland v. William Westray

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Did CSA err in determining that, where Respondent was represented by counsel and requested discharge of counsel, the trial court was required to determine and announce on the record that he was knowingly and voluntarily waiving the right to counsel? 2) Did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying Respondent’s request for the appointment of pro bono counsel on the grounds that it lacked the power to appoint pro bono counsel for Respondent?
06-03-2015 No. 46 Wicomico County Department of Social Services v. B.A.

Issue – Family Law – Where an instructor used class time to groom a student and lure her into a secret intimate relationship, should he be exempted from a finding of “indicated child sexual abuse” on the basis that his blatantly sexual behavior with the student occurred outside of class?
May 2015 Schedule
Date Docket # Title
05-12-2015 AG No. 18 (2013 T.)
&
AG No. 3 		Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. John Hamilton, Jr.
05-12-2015 AG No. 34 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Shauntese Curry Trye
 
05-12-2015 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?
05-11-2015 AG No. 6 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Gerald Katz
 
05-11-2015 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?
05-07-2015 AG No. 5 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Dennis Alan Van Dusen
 
05-07-2015 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.
05-07-2015 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?
05-06-2015 Bar Admissions
 
05-06-2015 AG No. 22 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Tawana Shephard
 
05-06-2015 AG No. 14 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Melodie Venee Shuler
 
05-06-2015 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?
05-06-2015 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?
April 2015 Schedule
Date Docket # Title
04-09-2015 No. 71 Suzanne Scales Windesheim, et al. v. Frank Larocca, et al.

Issues – Commercial Law – 1) Did CSA err in holding that an employee of a lender is a “lender” for purposes of civil liability under the Maryland Secondary Mortgage Loan Law (“SMLL”)? 2) Did CSA err by holding that the Respondents stated a claim on which relief could be granted under the SMLL? 3) Did CSA err by holding that a cause of action under the SMLL was “another specialty” under § 5-102 of the Maryland Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article and therefore entitled to a 12-year statute of limitations? 4) Did CSA err by holding that it was a question of fact to be decided by the jury as to whether Respondents’ claims against Petitioner were barred by the 3-year statute of limitations under § 5-101 of the Maryland Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article? 5) Whether as a matter of law a defendant may be liable under the SMLL, where the false advertising that is the purported basis for the claim occurred orally in a private setting, and where the record contains no evidence that the defendant participated in any way in the communication of the statements allegedly constituting false advertising?
04-09-2015 No. 65 Derrick Arthur Counts v. State of Maryland

Issue – Criminal Law – Is the value of the goods stolen an element of theft, such that amending a charging document on the morning of trial from theft under $1,000 (a misdemeanor) to theft of goods valued between $1,000 and $10,000 (a felony) constitutes a change to the character of the offense requiring the consent of both parties?
04-09-2015 No. 76 Nancy Lee Kathryn Thompson, et al. v. UBS Financial Services, Inc., et al.

Issues – Torts – 1) Should this Court adopt RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 242(2) and, in doing so, find that CSA erred in reversing the jury verdict for petitioners on conversion? 2) Did CSA err in reversing the jury verdict for petitioners on constructive fraud?
04-08-2015 No. 70 Alexander Dykes v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) When it finds meritorious grounds for granting a motion to discharge counsel, what is the extent of the trial court’s authority to appoint counsel? 2) After finding meritorious reasons for discharge and after discharging both Petitioner’s public defender specifically and the Office of the Public Defender generally, did the trial court err in denying Petitioner’s repeated pretrial requests for court-appointed counsel on the grounds that he was now “on his own” and that it did not have the authority to appoint counsel?
04-08-2015 No. 77 Lydia G. Wilcox, et al. v. Tristan J. Orellano

Issue – Torts – Did CSA err in concluding that a stipulation of dismissal signed by both parties in a health care malpractice claim constituted a “voluntary dismissal ... by the party who commenced the action” as intended by MD Code Ann., Courts & Jud. Proc. § 5-119(a)?
04-08-2015 No. 67 State of Maryland v. Harold Albert Norton, Jr.

Issue – Criminal Law – Did CSA err in determining that Norton’s right to confrontation under the federal constitution was violated where a DNA expert testified regarding the work of another DNA analyst, and that expert was a supervisor in the same lab, reviewed the work of the other analyst, and came to his own conclusion that was consistent with the conclusion of the other analyst, but the analyst herself did not testify?
04-08-2015 No. 75 Scott Shader, et ux. v. Hampton Improvement Assoc., Inc.

Issues – Real Property – 1) Whether the trial court properly held that Respondent was not estopped from claiming that the covenant in question was still valid in light of a prior, unappealed ruling that the covenant had been waived by abandonment? 2) Whether the trial court properly held that the covenant at issue had not been waived or abandoned? 3) Whether beneficiaries of covenants can permit violations of one part of a covenant and still seek enforcement of other parts of the same covenant? 4) Whether the trial court abused its discretion in not granting pre-trial summary judgment, where collateral estoppel should have prevented the Respondent from re-litigating facts which had been found against it in an unappealed prior action?
04-07-2015 No. 66
 		 Ottis E. Breeding, Jr., et al. v. Christian Nicholas Koste

Issues – Real Property – 1) Does the “woodlands exception” apply to cases involving adverse possession as well as those involving prescription? 2) If the “woodlands exception” applies to adverse possession cases, does it apply to the facts of this case? 3) Assuming, arguendo, the “woodlands exception” does apply and the use of the property was initially permissive, did there come a time when the character of the use changed and became adverse?
04-07-2015 No. 72

Arguments for cases no. 72 and 73 are in one recording. Separate files will be uploaded as soon as possible.		 State of Maryland v. Ronnie A. Hunt, Jr.

Issue – Criminal Law – Did CSA incorrectly reverse the trial court’s denial of Respondent’s amended petition for writ of actual innocence without a hearing where Respondent did not satisfy the statutory requirements of Section 8-301 and where the CSA ruling was inconsistent with its own case authority on the issue?
04-07-2015 No. 73

Arguments for cases no. 72 and 73 are in one recording. Separate files will be uploaded as soon as possible.

Case no. 73 begins at time 51:23.		 State of Maryland v. Kevin Hardy

Issues – Criminal Law – Did CSA incorrectly reverse the trial court’s denial of Respondent’s amended petition for writ of actual innocence without a hearing where Respondent did not satisfy the statutory requirements of Section 8-301 and where the CSA ruling was inconsistent with its own case authority on the issue?
04-01-2015 Bar Admissions
 		  
04-01-2015 No. 57 Board of Public Works, et al. v. K. Hovnanian's Four Seasons at Kent Island, LLC

Issues – Environmental Law – 1) Was Appellee required to await a final administrative decision and exhaust statutory administrative remedies before bringing an action for mandamus, injunction, and declaratory judgment to challenge the administrative procedure adopted to evaluate Appellee’s application for a State wetlands license? 2) Did the trial court err in substituting its judgment for that of the Board with respect to remediating the Wetlands Administrator’s conflict of interest, which involved a previously undisclosed relationship with one of Appellee’s attorneys and his law firm? 3) Did the trial court err in entering a writ of mandamus directing the Board to issue a decision on Appellee’s application for a State wetlands license by October 6, 2014, confining the facts that the Board may consider to those contained in that portion of the administrative record that existed on July 24, 2013, and limiting what the Board may consider in any future action on the project?
04-01-2015 AG No. 86 (2009 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Grason Eckel
 
04-01-2015 No. 69 Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission v. LaFarge North America, Inc.

Issues – Public Utilities – 1) Did CSA err in holding that a trial court may exceed the permissible scope of judicial review when considering a “deemed” rejection of a refund claim under PUA § 25-106? 2) Did CSA err in upholding the trial court’s order mandating that WSSC’s investigative files be produced as part of the agency record pursuant to Md. Rule 7-206?
04-01-2015 No. 68 Willie Ford, et al. v. Antwerpen Motorcars, LTD., et al.

Issue – Commercial Law – Under Md. law, may a car dealer force its customers into binding arbitration of a claim arising from a vehicle sales transaction, when the vehicle sales contract does not contain an arbitration agreement and Md. regulations governing vehicle sales transactions require the vehicle sales contract to “contain[] all agreements of the parties”?
March 2015 Schedule
Date Docket # Title
03-11-2015 Misc. No. 4 State of Maryland, et al. v. G&C Gulf, Inc., et al.

Certified question of law from the Court of Special Appeals

Questions - 1) Whether there is a justiciable controversy between the parties? 2) Whether Md. Code Ann., Transp. (1977, 2012 Repl. Vol., 2013 Supp.)("Transp.") §§ 21-10A-04(a)(3) and 21-10A-04(a)(4) are arbitrary, oppressive, or unreasonable and, thus, unconstitutional under Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights; and, if so, whether Transp. §§ 21-10A-04(a)(3) and 21-10A-04(a)(4) are severable? 3) Whether Transp. § 21-10A-04(a)(7) is void for vagueness and, thus, unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; and, if so, whether Transp. § 21-10A-04(a)(7) is severable?
03-11-2015 No. 56 State of Maryland v. Eric Yancey

Issue – Criminal Law – Did CSA incorrectly find reversible error where the trial court, after denying the defendant’s request to approach the bench during voir dire examination of two potential jurors, only one of whom was selected to serve on the jury, stated that defense counsel could consult with Yancey before any decision regarding whether to strike a juror was made and found explicitly credible the seated juror’s testimony that she could be “fair and impartial”?
03-10-2015 No. 55 David S. Bontempo, Individually and on behalf of Quotient, Inc. v. Clark J. Lare, et al.

Issues – Corporations and Associations – 1) Does Maryland adhere to the equitable reasonable-expectations employment doctrine or does it subordinate the doctrine to the at-will employment doctrine absent a written agreement guaranteeing continued employment? 2) Did the trial court apply incorrect legal standards in making its rulings on “fraudulent” conduct under §3-413 of the Corporations and Associations Art., petitioner’s constructive-fraud claim, and petitioner’s punitive-damages claim?
03-10-2015 No. 62 Jermaine Hailes v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Does C.J.P. § 12-302, which authorizes an appeal by the State from “a decision of a trial court that excludes evidence offered by the State … alleged to have been seized in violation of the Constitution of the United States, the Maryland Constitution, or the Maryland Declaration of Rights,” permit an appeal from the pretrial exclusion of evidence where the evidence was not seized and the constitutional violation will occur only if the State introduces the evidence at trial? 2) Did the victim’s statement of identification constitute a dying declaration where the victim made the statement four days after he was injured, two days after he was told that it would be unlikely if he lived for more than 24 hours, and two years before he died? 3) Does the Sixth Amendment right to confrontation bar the admission of the evidence in this case?
03-09-2015 No. 63 Tommy Garcia Bonilla v. State of Maryland

Issue – Criminal Law – Did CSA err by affirming the trial court’s judgment that a sentence below a binding plea agreement constitutes an illegal sentence?
03-09-2015 No. 52 Jessica N. Woznicki v. Geico General Insurance Company

Issues – Insurance Law – 1) In an uninsured/underinsured motorist case, did CSA err when it held that as a matter of law the underinsured motorist (UIM) carrier did not waive its right to written notice of a pending settlement with the tortfeasor’s insurance carrier where there was unequivocal testimony from Petitioner’s counsel that he received oral consent to settle from a UIM carrier representative? 2) Did CSA err when it held that the UIM carrier did not bear the burden of proving prejudice arising from the Petitioner’s failure to give written notice of the pending settlement with the tortfeasor’s insurance carrier?
03-09-2015 No. 54
Part 1
Part 2

This recording is in two parts.		 Jeannine Morse v. Erie Insurance Exchange

Issue – Insurance Law – When an underinsured motorist insurance company cannot prove prejudice should the law excuse it from paying contracted-for underinsurance benefits because the insured did not strictly comply with the requirements of Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc., § 19-511?
03-06-2015 No. 64 County Council of Prince George's County, Maryland, Sitting as the District Council v. Zimmer Development Company

Issues – Zoning and Planning – 1) Did CSA err in its statutory construction of the “Regional District Act” (“RDA”) by holding that the District Council is vested with appellate rather than original jurisdiction over Planning Board preliminary determinations with respect to regional and legislative zoning matters? 2) Did CSA err by applying County Council of Prince George’s County v. Curtis Regency, 121 Md. App. 123, even though it involved a preliminary planning matter rather than a legislative, regional zoning matter which conflicts with this Court’s holding in County Council of Prince George’s County v. Dutcher, 365 Md. 399? 3) Whether the County Council’s 1996 enactment of the County Code (“PGCC”) § 27-132(f), providing that the District Council “shall exercise original jurisdiction” in its “review [of] a decision made by … the Planning Board,” is consistent with the provisions of the RDA? 4) Whether CSA’s holding improperly transfers the legislative, regional zoning authority expressly provided to the District Council by the RDA to the Planning Board, a subordinate agency? 5) Whether CSA’s holding violates the separation of powers doctrine because the judiciary has divested the legislative body of its legislative authority over regional zoning, including the applications related to zoning map amendments sought here, specifically designated by State law? 6) Whether CSA nullified the District Council’s statutory right to “remand” a case to the Planning Board for further information, and the District Council’s obligation to issue a “final” decision prior to judicial review, by holding that the District Council is limited after remand to only those issues that were remanded? 7) Assuming, arguendo, that CSA correctly held that the District Council’s standard of review of the Planning Board’s actions is the “arbitrary, capricious, discriminatory or illegal” standard, then whether CSA erred by reinstating the Planning Board’s recommendations as to Zimmer’s applications, instead of remanding for the District Council to apply the correct standard of review?
03-06-2015 No. 53 State of Maryland v. Derrell Johnson

Issue – Criminal Law – Did CSA err in merging both the kidnapping and robbery sentences into the felony murder sentence, rather than merging only one of them?
03-02-2015 No. 92 Kathy Fuller, et al. v. Republican Central Committee of Carroll County, Maryland

Issues – State Government – 1) Does Article 3, Section 13 of the Constitution of Maryland (“Section 13”) prohibit a party central committee from submitting more than one name to the Governor to fill a single vacancy in the General Assembly? 2) Is a temporary restraining order appropriate relief to prevent a party central committee from violating Section 13?
February 2015 Schedule
Date Docket # Title
02-10-2015 No. 44

This case and No. 58, below, were argued together.		 Baltimore County, Maryland, et al. v. Carroll Thiergartner

Issues – Labor & Employment – 1) Is the County entitled to a complete offset of workers’ compensation benefits due to Respondent’s election and receipt of a lump sum retirement benefit payment under the County’s Deferred Retirement Option Program (DROP) until such time as that DROP payment is fully accounted for by operation of Md. Code Ann., Lab. & Empl. § 9-503? 2) What methodology is correct for calculation of the County’s offset of workers’ compensation benefits to effectuate the legislative purpose of § 9-503 where Respondent has elected and received a lump sum payment of retirement benefits under DROP?
02-10-2015 No. 58

This case and No. 44, above, were argued together.		 Jeffrey Walters v. Baltimore County, Maryland

Issues – Workers’ Compensation – 1) Is the County entitled to a complete offset of workers’ compensation benefits due to appellant’s election and receipt of a lump sum retirement benefit payment under the County’s Deferred Retirement Option Program (DROP) until such time as that DROP payment is fully accounted for by operation of Md. Code Ann., Lab. & Empl., § 9-503? 2) What methodology is correct for calculation of the County’s offset of workers’ compensation benefits to effectuate the legislative purpose of § 9-503 where appellant has elected and received a lump sum payment of retirement benefits under DROP?
02-10-2015 No. 41 Terance Garner v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Are separate consecutive sentences for use of a handgun in the commission of a crime of violence prohibited when a single handgun is used in committing two crimes against a single victim in one transaction? 2) Where CSA correctly determined that the trial court imposed an illegal sentence, but failed to correct that illegal sentence, should this Court correct the illegal nature of the sentence?
02-09-2015 No. 45 Linda Connors, individually etc. v. Government Employees Insurance Company

Issue – Insurance – Do the underinsured motorist provisions of GEICO’s insurance contract provide Petitioner a limit of underinsured coverage of $300,000 for each injured person, subject to an aggregate payment to all Petitioner’s claims by GEICO not to exceed $300,000?
02-09-2015 No. 49 In re: Tyrell A.

Issues – Criminal Law (Juvenile) – 1) Does the term “victim,” defined in Md. Code (2001, 2008 Repl. Vol) Criminal Procedure Art., §§ 11-601(j) and 11-603(a), as “a person who suffers death, personal injury, or property damage or loss as a direct result of a crime or delinquent act,” include an individual who sustains personal injury while voluntarily participating in the crime or delinquent act? 2) Is an individual who sustains personal injury while voluntarily participating in the common law offense of affray a “victim” within the meaning of §§ 11-601(j) and 11-603(a)? 3) Should the definition of “victim” in §§ 11-601(j) and 11-603(a) be given a different interpretation in juvenile delinquency cases than in criminal cases? 4) Did the trial court lack authority to order Petitioner to make restitution in this case?
02-09-2015 No. 50 State Department of Assessments and Taxation v. Kevin Andrecs

Issue – Taxation – Did the MD Tax Court correctly calculate the “taxable assessment” for homestead tax credit purposes under § 9-105 of the Tax-Property Article where the statute requires the taxable assessment to include the value of substantially completed improvements that a homeowner makes to his dwelling?
02-06-2015 No. 42 Albert Sublet IV v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Did the lower courts err in excluding crucial Facebook evidence on authentication grounds where the suspected author of the Facebook posts testified at trial, admitted discussing the fight on Facebook, and recognized this specific Facebook conversation, and where the posts contained numerous distinctive characteristics demonstrating authenticity? 2) In excluding Facebook evidence on authenticity grounds, did the lower courts err by applying an incorrect legal standard? 3) In assessing the Facebook evidence, did the lower courts err by not applying a correct and complete authentication analysis?
02-06-2015 No. 59 Tavares D. Harris v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Are one-to-one communications sent through a social networking website governed by the authentication standard, announced in Griffin v. State, 419 Md. 343 (2011), or are they excepted from the standard, as announced in footnote 13 of Griffin because they are like emails, texts and instant messages? 2) Should there remain a difference in assessing the authentication of evidence derived from social networking websites on the one hand and emails/texts/ instant messages on the other, given the identical identity-separation concerns attendant to all those forms of communication? 3) If the standard in Griffin applies, did the trial court abuse its discretion in admitting Twitter messages purportedly written by petitioner when no extrinsic evidence connected petitioner to the account or the authorship of the messages?
02-06-2015 No. 60 Carlos Alberto Monge-Martinez v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Are one-to-one communications sent through a social networking website governed by the authentication standard, announced in Griffin v. State, 419 Md. 343 (2011), or are they excepted from the standard, as announced in footnote 13 of Griffin because they are like emails, texts and instant messages? 2) Should there remain a difference in assessing the authentication of evidence derived from social networking websites on the one hand and emails/texts/ instant messages on the other, given the identical identity-separation concerns attendant to all those forms of communication? 3) If the standard in Griffin applies, did the trial court abuse its discretion in admitting Twitter messages purportedly written by petitioner when no extrinsic evidence connected petitioner to the account or the authorship of the messages? 4) Did CSA err in deeming any error in this regard by the trial court harmless?
02-05-2015 Bar Admissions
 		  
02-05-2015 AG No. 64 (2013 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Jeffrey S. Marcalus
 
02-05-2015 Misc. No. 5 Roger Schlossberg, Chapter 7 Trustee v. Bell Builders Remodeling, Inc., et al.

Certified question of law from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland.

Would meeting the factors set forth in DeWitt Truck Brokers v. W. Ray Flemming Fruit Co., 540 F.2d 681-87 (4th Cir. 1976), be sufficient to establish a paramount equity, in the absence of common law fraud, to warrant piercing the corporate veil?
02-05-2015 No. 51 Maryland Casualty Company, et al. v. Blackstone International LTD, et al.

Issues – Insurance – 1) Did CSA err in holding that product packaging was “advertisement,” and that the “use of another’s advertising idea” need not be “wrongful use,” when it substituted its own definitions of those terms for the clear and unambiguous definitions contained in the Policy? 2) Did CSA err in applying this Court’s precedent requiring an insured to establish all three elements of coverage for “advertising injury” to trigger the duty to defend by concluding that the “causal relationship” element was not necessary in this case? 3) Did CSA err in finding that Petitioners waived policy exclusions as bases for denial of coverage and creating liability beyond the bounds of the Policy when, as a matter of public policy, coverage may not be expanded by waiver? 4) Did CSA err in finding that Petitioners waived policy exclusions as bases for denial of coverage when policy exclusion defenses were raised, argued and preserved in the trial court and on appeal?
02-05-2015 No. 48 State of Maryland v. Christopher David Manion

Issue – Criminal Law – Where, consistent with State v. Coleman, 423 Md. 666 (2011), the trier of fact inferred an intent to deprive from acts subsequent to the defendant’s deception, did CSA err when it drew different inferences from the same conduct and reversed the conviction?
 
January 2015 Schedule
Date Docket # Title
01-13-2015 AG No. 1 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Darlene M. Cocco
 
01-13-2015 AG No. 30 (2013 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Carl Stephen Basinger
 
01-13-2015 No. 39 Anne Arundel County, Maryland, et al. v. Harwood Civic Association, et al.

Issues – Zoning and Planning – 1) Whether the prima facie aggrievement standard established in Bryniarski v. Montgomery Cnty. Bd. of Appeals, 247 Md. 137 (1967), should be expanded beyond challenges to administrative land use decisions to include challenges to legislative comprehensive zoning enactments? 2) Whether the “almost prima facie” standard as established in Ray v. Mayor of Balt., 430 Md. 74 (2013), should be expanded beyond challenges to administrative land use decisions to include challenges to legislative comprehensive zoning enactments? 3) Whether CSA properly applied the “legal boundaries” standard of review to the legislative actions of the County Council? 4) Whether CSA erred in imposing the “consistency” requirement of § 1-417(b) of the Land Use Article? 5) Whether the considerations established as relevant to special aggrievement in Ray v. Mayor of Balt. apply equally to cases in which a private citizen challenges the validity of legislatively enacted comprehensive zoning? 6) Whether Land Use Article § 1-417 (enacted in 2012) required that comprehensive zoning enacted by Anne Arundel County in 2011 be consistent with the Anne Arundel County General Development Plan? 7) Whether the title to Chapter 674, Laws of Maryland 2013 retroactively required comprehensive zoning enacted by Anne Arundel County in 2011 to be consistent with the Anne Arundel County General Development Plan? 8) Whether Md. Code Ann., Art. 66B § 1.04(f) required comprehensive zoning enacted by Anne Arundel County in 201 to be consistent with the Anne Arundel County General Development Plan? 9) Because one element of unlawful spot zoning requires zoning that is inconsistent with the comprehensive zoning plan, can a local legislative body unlawfully spot-zone a particular property when adopting legislation that enacts into law a new comprehensive zoning plan, when all zoning included in the legislation is part of that plan?
01-12-2015

No. 35

Please note that the sound in the recording starts a few seconds after the video.

 Estela Espina, et al. v. Steven Jackson, et al.

Issues – Constitutional Law – 1) Can the General Assembly contravene or restrict by statute self-executing rights in the state constitution? 2) Does the Local Government Tort Claims Act (LGTCA) encompass and serve to cap self-executing constitutional rights? 3) With 96.5% of the verdict stripped from the petitioners, is the application of the LGTCA damages cap to the facts here unconstitutional under Art. 19? 4) Did CSA err in applying the LGTCA cap to the constitutional deprivations here after the jury found malice and the County stipulated to scope of employment? 5) Did CSA err in holding that all wrongful death claims are reduced to one claim?
01-12-2015

AG No. 31 (2013 T.)

Please note that the sound in the recording starts a few seconds after the video.
 

 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Lance Butler, III
 
01-12-2015 No. 37 Marcus Lee Smiley v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Did the trial court err in admitting the prior recorded statement of an unavailable witness after finding that Petitioner procured the witness’s unavailability at trial? 2) Did the lower court err in failing to suppress an extrajudicial identification of Petitioner where his photograph was one of only two in a photographic array which was not visibly altered and his clothing matched the shooter’s described attire? 3) Should MD adopt, either as a matter of State constitutional or evidentiary law, a standard for evaluating the admissibility of eyewitness identifications which better reflects present scientific knowledge concerning eyewitness memory?
01-12-2015 No. 38 David Payne, et ux. v. Erie Insurance Exchange, et al.

Issue – Insurance Law – Under Maryland Indemnity Insurance Co. v. Kornke, et al., 21 Md.App. 178, 319 A.2d 603 (1974) and its progeny, did the trial court err in holding that Erie was not required to provide coverage to a second permittee using an insured’s car within the named insured’s original grant of permissive use?
01-09-2015 AG No. 73 (2013 T.)

Due to a technical problem there is no video recording of oral arguments for this case. The link above goes to an audio recording.

 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Earl Americus Smith
 
01-09-2015 No. 40

Due to a technical problem there is no video recording of oral arguments for this case. The link above goes to an audio recording.

 Aaron Harrison-Solomon v. State of Maryland

Issue – Criminal Law – Where Petitioner was committed to the Department of Health & Mental Hygiene pursuant to a finding that he was not criminally responsible, was subsequently conditionally released, and did not violate any of the conditions of his release, did the circuit court have jurisdiction, after the expiration of the order of conditional release (OCR), to grant a motion to “extend” the OCR filed five days prior to its expiration?
01-08-2015 Bar Admissions
 		  
01-08-2015 AG No. 15 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Mira Sugarman Burghardt
 
01-08-2015 No. 7 Dwayne Steven Spence v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) May a police officer search the contents of an arrestee’s cell phone as a search incident to arrest without a warrant? 2) Does a trial judge’s announcement that a jury trial waiver is “freely and voluntarily given” comply with Rule 4-246(b)’s requirement that the court “determine[] and announce[] on the record that the waiver is made knowingly and voluntarily”?
01-08-2015 No. 11 Quioly Shikell Demby v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Were Appellant’s Fourth Amendment rights violated when an officer, pursuant to a valid arrest, read text messages to and from others located on his cell phone without a warrant? 2) Are the independent source or inevitable discovery doctrines applicable where an officer, using information found by warrantlessly searching an individual’s cell phone, later obtains a search warrant for that cell phone’s contents?
01-08-2015 No. 43 Ronald Sinclair v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) May the police search the contents of an arrestee’s cell phone without a warrant, incident to his valid arrest? 2) Did CSA mistakenly conclude that Rule 4-252 is satisfied, and appellate review is available, whenever a trial court allows a previously filed pretrial omnibus motion to be withdrawn “without prejudice”? 3) If so, has Petitioner “waived” his claim under Rule 4-252, thereby precluding any form of appellate review, even discretionary review under Rule 8-131(a)? 4) Even if review under 8-131(a) is legally available, should this Court decline to exercise its discretion to engage in such review here because the record is deficient?
December 2014 Schedule
Date Docket # Title
12-10-2014 AG No. 48 (2013 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Kevin Trent Olszewski
 
12-10-2014 No. 47 State of Maryland v. Kerryann N. Smith

Issue – Criminal Law – Did CSA err in reversing the circuit court’s denial of Respondent’s petition for a writ of coram nobis where Respondent had waived her coram nobis claims, failed to meet her burden of proving that her guilty plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered and was barred from seeking a writ of coram nobis on grounds of laches?
12-09-2014 AG No. 86 (2012 T.)
AG No. 13 (2013 T.)
AG No. 57 (2013 T.)		 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Sheron A. Barton
12-09-2014 No. 30 Falls Garden Condominium Association, Inc. v. Falls Homeowners Association, Inc.

Issues – Civil Procedure – 1) Whether it was error to enforce the Letter of Intent given the parties never intended to be bound by the Letter of Intent and the Letter of Intent does not contain all material terms? 2) Did the lower court err in failing to hold a full plenary hearing on the Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement since the existence of a binding and enforceable agreement was contested and there were contradicting proffers regarding a material issue, i.e. whether the parties intended to be bound by the Letter of Intent?
12-08-2014 AG No. 8 (2013 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Kenneth Haley
 
12-08-2014 Misc. No. 1 Joseph Antonio, et al. v. SSA Security, Inc. d/b/a Security Services of America

Certified question of Law from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Does the Maryland Security Guards Act, Md. Code Ann., Bus. Occ. & Prof. § 19-501, impose liability beyond common law principles of respondeat superior such that an employer may be responsible for off-duty criminal acts of an employee if the employee planned any part of the off-duty criminal acts while he or she was on duty?
12-08-2014 No. 31 Metro Maintenance Systems South, Inc. v. Thomas Milburn, et al.

Issues – Civil Procedure – 1) Did CSA err in its decision that the lower court’s remand order was not a “final judgment” as defined by CJP § 12-301? 2) Did the lower court act arbitrarily and capriciously in remanding a final administrative decision to the processes of an administrative agency without conducting any record review and without any finding of fraud, mistake, inadvertence, cognizable defect, intervening factors or subsequent events? 3) Did CSA properly decide Anne Arundel County v. Rode, 214 Md.App. 702 (2013), and properly apply that ruling to the procedural circumstances in this case
12-05-2014 Bar Admissions
 		  
12-05-2014 AG No. 12 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. David Peter Buehler
 
12-05-2014 AG No. 83 (2013 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Eugene Alan Shapiro
 
12-05-2014 No. 29 Anne Arundel County, Maryland, et al. v. Steve Bell, et al.

Issues – Zoning and Planning – 1) Whether the prima facie aggrievement standard established in Bryniarski v. Montgomery County Bd. of Appeals, 247 Md. 137 (1967), should be expanded beyond challenges to administrative land use decisions to include challenges to legislative comprehensive zoning enactments? 2) Whether the “almost prima facie” standard as established in Ray v. Mayor of Baltimore, 430 Md. 74 (2013), should be expanded beyond challenges to administrative land use decisions to include challenges to legislative comprehensive zoning enactments? 3) Whether noise from a predicted increase in traffic constitutes “special damages”?
12-05-2014 No. 28 State of Maryland v. Charles William Callahan

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Did CSA err in concluding that the lower court violated the doctrine of the separation of powers in finding respondent in violation of his probation based upon his failure to comply with a lawful order of his probation agent where the order was a requirement of his mandatory parole release conditions? 2) Did CSA correctly hold that the lower court erred in revoking Callahan’s probation?
November 2014 Schedule
Date Docket # Title
11-12-2014 No. 19 William Rounds, et al. v. Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission, et al.

Issues – Local Government – 1) Whether parties seeking redress from alleged government violations of the Constitution should be required to adhere to the strict notice requirements of the Local Government Tort Claims Act? 2) Did CSA err in upholding the severe remedy of dismissal for an alleged failure to join necessary parties, despite the Complaint’s assertion that non-defendant neighbors did not oppose action? 3) Did CSA err in its factual determination that Petitioners failed to file this cause of action within the statute of limitations?
11-12-2014 AG Nos. 32 & 46 (2013 T.)
 		 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. John M. Green
11-12-2014 No. 27 Joseph F. Cunningham, et al. v. Matthew Feinberg

Issues – Labor & Employment – 1) Does application of the Md. choice of law principle of lex loci contractus preclude a claim under the Md. Wage Payment and Collection Law (MD. Code Ann. Lab. & Empl. § 3-501 et seq. (“MWPCL”))? 2) Does proper application of lex loci contractus preclude respondent’s MWPCL claim?
11-10-2014 AG No. 3 (2013 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Bruce Michael Smith
 
11-10-2014 No. 21 People's Insurance Counsel Division v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, et al.

Issues – Insurance Law – 1) Should this Court reexamine Maryland common law on construing insurance contracts and, recognizing that such contracts are not the product of equal bargaining, hold that terms contained in an insurance policy must be strictly construed against the insurer? 2) Did the Commissioner err in allowing State Farm to deny coverage for damage to a collapsed carport under a policy that insured against “the sudden, entire collapse of a building” based on a restrictive definition of the term “building” that does not appear in the insurance policy or any other written document, and is based only on oral instructions given to a catastrophe claims adjuster when she was dispatched to handle claims following a severe snowstorm?
11-10-2014 No. 25 Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1300, and David A. McClure v. William T. Lovelace, Jr.

Issue – Labor & Employment – Is an internal union remedy “inadequate” under Md. common law if it does not allow for the monetary damages that the plaintiff seeks in court?
11-07-2014 No. 23 Dominik Oglesby v. State of Maryland

Issue – Criminal Law – Pursuant to the rule of lenity, was Appellant required to be sentenced for possession of a firearm pursuant to Crim. Law Art., § 5-622, one of the two statutes punishing the conduct for which he was sentenced, because it prescribed a more lenient sentence than that mandated by the statute, Public Safety Art., § 5-133, under which he was sentenced?
11-07-2014 No. 26 Dennis J. Kelly, Jr. v. George W. Duvall, Jr., et al.

Issues – Estates & Trusts – 1) Did the lower court err in construing the Will in a manner inconsistent with Md. Code Ann. Estates & Trusts § 4-401 and finding that it imposed survivorship as a condition precedent to inheritance under the Will? 2) Did the lower court err in construing the Will as demonstrating the Testatrix’s contrary intent sufficient to overcome the presumption that § 4-403 (2013) (the “anti-lapse” statute) applies?
11-07-2014 No. 22 William Siam Simpson, III v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Does the State violate a criminal defendant’s rights under the Fifth Amendment and Article 22 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights when a prosecutor repeatedly and over objection assures the jury in opening statement that the defendant “will tell you” that he committed the alleged offenses? 2) Does a trial court commit reversible error when it allows the State to offer opinion testimony from a law enforcement officer concerning his canine partner’s alleged detection of an accelerant without requiring the State to name the officer as an expert prior to trial or to qualify the officer as an expert at trial? 3) Did CSA err in holding that a police officer may not testify as to the significance of an accelerant-detecting dog’s actions unless that officer is first qualified and accepted as an expert pursuant to Md. Rule 5-702?
11-06-2014 Bar Admissions  
11-06-2014 AG No. 4 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Sandy Yeh Chang
 
11-06-2014 Misc. No. 3 In the Matter of the Application of T. Z.-A. O. for Admission to the Bar of Maryland
 
11-06-2014 AG No. 7 (2013 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Mark Thomas Mixter
 
11-06-2014 No. 20 Bernard Delaney McCree, Jr. v. State of Maryland

Issue – Criminal Law – Is the trademark counterfeiting statute, Md. Code, Crim. Law Art. § 8-611 (2012 Repl. Vol.), unconstitutional because it is overbroad and/or void-for-vagueness?
October 2014 Schedule
Date Docket # Title
10-07-2014 AG No. 61 (2013 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Michael C. Hodes
 
10-07-2014 AG No. 63 (2013 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Gayton J. Thomas, Jr.
 
10-07-2014 No. 15 State of Maryland v. Kenneth Martin Stachowski, Jr.

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Did CSA err in holding that a court may not order restitution as part of a plea agreement on a charge as a condition of a probation in another matter before the court, creating uncertainty in conflict with this Court’s holdings in Walczak and Lee? 2) Did CSA err in vacating only the negotiated and accepted restitution condition required of Petitioner, which was part of the plea agreement, rather than rescinding the entire plea agreement, thus allowing Petitioner the full benefit of his bargain with the State without assuming any of his negotiated burden?
10-07-2014 No. 102 (2013 T.) Steven M. Johnson v. State of Maryland

DNA Appeal
10-06-2014 AG No. 17 (2013 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Patrick Guy Samuel Marie Merkle
 
10-06-2014 No. 13 Jerrod M. Peterson v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Did the trial court err in ruling that the attorney-client privilege prevented the co-conspirator’s attorney from testifying about the co-conspirator’s proffer session with a prosecutor and a county homicide detective? 2) Was Petitioner’s Sixth Amendment Right of Confrontation violated when the trial court limited his cross-examination of multiple State witnesses? 3) Did the trial court commit reversible error by limiting Petitioner’s cross-examination of multiple State witnesses? 4) Are Petitioner’s claims regarding cross-examination of witnesses properly before this Court for review?
10-06-2014 No. 14 Kevin E. Jones v. State of Maryland

Issue – Criminal Law – Was the evidence sufficient to convict Petitioner of second degree assault of the intent to frighten modality where the State failed to prove that Petitioner was aware of the existence of the victim?
10-03-2014 AG No. 99 (2013 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Talieb Nilaja Wills
 
10-03-2014 AG No. 28 (2013 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Michael Francis Barnett
 
10-03-2014 No. 18 Gineene Williams, etc., et al. v. Peninsula Regional Medical Center, et al.

Issue – Torts – Does MD’s involuntary admission immunity statute, Health General § 10-618, apply to health care providers who evaluate an individual and decide to discharge the patient from psychiatric care?
10-02-2014 Bar Admissions  
10-02-2014 AG No. 2 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Christopher W. Poverman
 
10-02-2014 AG No. 14 (2013 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Michael Craig Worsham
 
10-02-2014 No. 16 Traimne Martinez Allen v. State of Maryland

Did the lower court err in reading MD Code, Public Safety Art., § 2-510, so broadly as to conclude that crime scene DNA of other suspects – one of whom had a conviction for a crime very similar to the events for which Petitioner stood trial – was not admissible at trial, and was Petitioner denied his constitutional right to present a defense?
10-02-2014 No. 17 Howard Bay Diggs v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Does MD Code, Public Safety Art., §2-510, which provides that “a DNA database match may be used to establish probable cause to charge and arrest an individual” but “the database match would be inadmissible at a trial of that individual…,” prohibit the introduction at trial by a criminal defendant of evidence of DNA matches to alternative suspects; and if so, does §2-510 deny a criminal defendant his/her constitutional right to present a defense? 2) Did the trial court err in excluding evidence offered by Petitioner of DNA database matches to other suspects on evidence collected at the crime scene?
September 2014 Schedule
Date Docket # Title
09-10-2014 AG No. 33 (2013 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Thomas Wesley Felder, II
 
09-10-2014 AG No. 5 (2013 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Sandra Lynn Reno
 
09-10-2014 No. 85 (2013 T.) State of Maryland v. Joseph William Payne & Jason Bond

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) May a trial court allow a lay witness, without qualification as an expert, to testify about objectively verifiable facts regarding cell phone towers that do not involve the witness forming any opinion or drawing any inference or conclusion? 2) Did CSA err in ruling that wiretap statements made by Respondent Bond but not Respondent Payne were nevertheless admissible against Payne as statements by a party-opponent?
09-10-2014 No. 4 Deborah Hiob, et al. v. Progressive American Insurance Company, et al.

Issues – Civil Procedure – 1) Did CSA err in holding that a partial voluntary dismissal can constitute an appropriate “separate document” for the purpose of Maryland Rule 2-601 even though that document is not signed by the clerk or the court? 2) Whether judgment was entered on the date the clerk entered the court’s order entering judgment and whether the notice of appeal filed prior to that docket entry is a premature appeal saved by the provisions of Rule 8-602(d)?
09-09-2014 AG No. 73 (2012 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Joseph Mua Kum
 
09-09-2014 AG No. 72 (2012 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Scott Gregory Adams
 
09-09-2014 No. 2 John S. Burson, et al. v. Jeffrey G. Capps

Issues – Financial Institutions – 1) Whether a Truth-in-Lending Act (“TILA”) Notice of Rescission can be effective to cancel a loan transaction that has not yet taken place, and remain effective despite the issuing party’s subsequent acceptance of the benefits of the transaction? 2) Whether a TILA action filed in December 2009 on the basis of a Notice of Rescission issued in April 2007 was untimely as beyond the one-year statute of limitation in 15 U.S.C. § 1640(e)? 3) Whether rescission is an available remedy when the trial court has no jurisdiction over either the original lender or its assignee because all claims against both have been dismissed, with no appeal taken from that dismissal?
09-04-2014 AG No. 10 (2013 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Daun Robert Weiers
 
09-04-2014 AG No. 36 (2013 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Jason Robin Gelb
 
09-04-2014 AG No. 16 (2013 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Ronald Claude Brigerman, Jr.
 
09-04-2014 No. 99 (2013 T.) Luther Gales, III v. Sunoco, Inc. and American Zurich Insurance

Issue – Workers’ Compensation – Are Appellants in a de novo workers’ compensation appeal required to admit into evidence the award from which the appeal was taken as an element of their burden of proof?
09-03-2014 Bar Admissions
 		  
09-03-2014 AG No. 81 (2013 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Donald Saunders Litman
09-03-2014 AG No. 25 (2013 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Christine Boco Gage-Cohen
 
09-03-2014 AG No. 49 (2013 T.)
 		 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Floyd Reynard Blair
 
09-03-2014 No. 3 State of Maryland v. Jonathan Johnson

Issue – Criminal Law – Is a “suggestion” by the defendant that the victim’s mental health records may contain information that is either exculpatory or relating to the victim’s “propensity for veracity,” not sufficient, under Goldsmith v. State, 337 Md. 112 (1995), to “call for an in camera review” of those records?
09-03-2014 No. 97 (2013 T.)
 		 Gregory Howard v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Did the trial court err in refusing Petitioner’s request for a postponement without sending the matter to the administrative judge or its designee? 2) Did the trial court fail to make the necessary inquiry regarding Petitioner’s request for counsel before denying the request for a postponement? 3) Did the trial court err in finding that Petitioner’s waiver of counsel resulted in a concomitant waiver of the right to discovery? 4) Was Petitioner deprived of his constitutional right to a speedy trial?