Court of Appeals Webcast Archive 2018 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 2019 Schedule
Date Docket # Title
06-07-2019 No. 64 Joseph Stracke, et al. v. Estate of Kerry Butler, Jr., et al.

Issues – Courts & Judicial Proceedings – 1) Does willful or gross negligence by an omission defeat the immunity from liability granted to fire and rescue personnel by the Maryland Fire and Rescue Company Act, Md. Code, Courts & Judicial Proceedings § 5-604, or is the immunity lost only by a willful or grossly negligent affirmative act? 2) Did CSA err in finding sufficient evidence that Petitioners committed gross negligence that caused the death of a patient, when undisputed evidence established that Petitioners assessed the patient, including taking vital signs, and within seven minutes transported the patient to the hospital, where his condition suddenly worsened? 3) Does § 5-604 afford Petitioners, as employees of a fire department, limited immunity against claims for simple negligence?  
06-07-2019 No. 72 Edinson Herrera Ramirez v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Procedure – 1) Did CSA err when it held that a structural error did not occur when a biased juror was not stricken from the jury by trial counsel? 2) Did CSA err when it held that even if a structural error occurred Petitioner was not prejudiced? 3) Was Petitioner denied effective assistance of counsel under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)? 4) Did CSA err when, as support for its decision, it used the number of prospective jurors in St. Mary’s County when trial in this case was held in Carroll County?  
06-07-2019 No. 78 Timothy Heidenberg v. Claudia Grier

Issues – Courts & Judicial Proceedings – 1) Does Dawkins v. Balt. City Police Department, 376 Md. 53 (2003), preclude a parent immediate appellate review from the rejection of the doctrine of parent-child immunity? 2) Does the doctrine of parent-child immunity survive the death of a child?  
06-07-2019 Comments in Honor of Judge Clayton Greene, Jr. on His Retirement
 
 
06-06-2019 Bar Admissions
 
06-06-2019 AG No. 5 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Eugene Ignatius Kane, Jr.
 
06-06-2019 No. 75 Davona Grant, et al. v. County Council of Prince George's County sitting as the District Council, et al.

Issues – Administrative Law – 1) Does Maryland administrative law authorize a zoning tribunal to vote to approve a special exception without deliberating on the factual issues and then delegate to its staff attorney the authority to make the required factual findings without informing the staff attorney of the factual basis of the tribunal’s decision? 2) If CSA is correct that the District Council’s staff “attorney prepared a draft opinion and showed it separately to individual members of the District Council” before the meeting, is such a process an “evasive device” which violates the Open Meeting Act? 3) Did the District Council err by exercising original jurisdiction when it reversed the Zoning Hearing Examiner’s decision?  
May 2019 Schedule
Date Docket # Title
05-06-2019 No. 76 No. 67 Luke Daniel Johnson v. State of Maryland

No. 76 Luke Daniel Johnson v. State of Maryland Issues – Criminal Procedure – 1) Does Maryland Code Ann., Criminal Procedure, § 6-223(e)(4), which provides that a “finding under paragraph (2) of this subsection … is subject to appeal under Title 12, Subtitle 3 or Subtitle 4 of the Courts Article,” give a right of appeal to a probationer or defendant who receives and enhanced sentence based on a finding under paragraph (2) of § 6-223(e)? 2) Was the evidence presented at the hearing sufficient to rebut the presumption established by paragraph (1) of Crim. Proc. § 6-223(e), after consideration of the factors set forth in paragraph (2)? 3) Did the trial court err when it sentenced Petitioner to life in prison, suspending all but forty-six years with credit for time served, for his first technical violation of probation, without following necessary procedures, including compliance with Crim. Proc. § 6-223(d)(3)?  
05-06-2019 No. 77 Donald Eugene Bailey v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Procedure – 1) Did CSA err in holding that the trial court did not illegally impose an enhanced sentence after the State failed to serve timely notice under Md. Rule 4-245(b)? 2) If Petitioner’s sentence was not illegal, did CSA misapply the test for determining whether he received ineffective assistance of counsel?  
05-06-2019 No. 74 John Junek v. St. Mary's County Department of Social Services

Issue – Family Law – Is intent or scienter an element of child neglect under Md. Code Ann., Family Law § 5-701(s)?  
05-02-2019 Bar Admissions
 
05-02-2019 No. 66 Board of County Commissioners of Washington County, Maryland v. Perennial Solar, LLC

Issue – Public Utilities – Is local zoning authority preempted by state law with respect to the approval and location of Solar Energy Generating Systems such as the one at issue in this case?  
05-02-2019 No. 73 State of Maryland v. Philip Daniel Thomas

Issue – Criminal Procedure – As a matter of first impression, is a sentence imposed on remand legal if the new sentence imposes the same or fewer years of imprisonment but results in a later parole eligibility date than the original sentence?
05-02-2019 No. 70 Wireless One, Inc. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, et al.

Issues – Real Property – 1) Under Real Property Article § 12-201(e)(1)(i)(2), is a person who leaves a publicly funded facility as a result of demolition or rehabilitation excluded from relocation benefits if it leased after the unit of government acquired title to the real property? 2) Has Petitioner stated a claim for an unconstitutional taking?  
April 2019 Schedule
Date Docket # Title
04-09-2019 No. 65 State of Maryland v. Andrew Brown

Issues – Criminal Procedure – 1) Does an announced sentence that is anomalous in context qualify as an “evident mistake” that is subject to correction under Maryland Rule 4-345(c)? 2) Can statements regarding the defendant’s aggregate sentence, serve under Maryland Rule 4-345(c), to “correct” a mistake in the announcement of a sentence on an individual count?  
04-09-2019 No. 69 Tomekia Conaway v. State of Maryland

Issue – Criminal Procedure – In light of the language of the Justice Reinvestment Act (Md. Code, Crim. Proc. Art. §§ 6-223(e)(4) & 6-224(c)(2)(iv)), may a defendant obtain appellate review of a finding or decision imposing incarceration for a technical violation of probation by filing a notice of appeal, or is an application for leave to appeal required?  
04-09-2019 Misc. No. 27 In Re the Application of Alonya Renee Knight for Admission to the Bar of Maryland
 
04-08-2019 Comments In Honor of Speaker Busch
 		  
04-08-2019 No. 62 Ronald F. Moser, et al. v. Kristi Heffington, et al.

Issues – Civil Procedure – 1) Did CSA err when it vacated the trial court’s denial of Respondent’s motion to stay in a case where: A) Respondent initiated the civil action for defamation; B) during the pendency of the civil action, Respondent was criminally indicted for the conduct at issue in the civil suit, yet Respondent had fully participated in all aspects of discovery both prior to and after the indictment, which discovery included her own deposition; and C) on the eve of trial, and four months after the indictment, Respondent filed an 11th hour motion to stay the civil trial on the grounds that she intended to invoke her Fifth Amendment privilege not to testify at the civil trial? 2) Did Respondent waive her Fifth Amendment privilege in the civil action by testifying at her deposition and providing other discovery responses without invoking the privilege, after she was on notice that the police were investigating her for the conduct at issue? 3) Given that Respondent had already answered questions at her deposition concerning the conduct at issue, did Respondent fail to preserve for review the denial of a stay of the civil action where she failed to proffer the questions as to which she intended to invoke her right to silence – which was necessary to determine if she could validly exercise the privilege or had waived it? 4) Did CSA unnecessarily decide a Constitutional question, i.e. whether the trial court had failed to fully consider Respondent’s Fifth Amendment right by not granting a stay of the civil action, after it learned that Respondent had been convicted of the very conduct that formed the basis of the alleged defamation, which rendered moot her defamation claim?  
04-08-2019 No. 68 State of Maryland v. Mark Edmund Christian, II

Issues – Criminal Procedure – 1) Did the post-conviction court and CSA err when each court declined to order a hearing to resolve serious and wide-spread concerns about the integrity of the transcripts in this case and in other criminal trials presided over by this trial court judge? 2) Did the post-conviction court err when it failed to consider whether Respondent was prejudiced by his counsel’s failure to object to instructions that told the jurors that the court’s instructions were “binding” and that they “must apply” the law as the court explained and also told the jurors that they were the “judges of the law,” and did CSA err when it concluded that the instructions resulted in “structural error” and that, consequently, Respondent had satisfied his burden to show that but for counsel’s failure to object to the instructions, there was a substantial possibility that the outcome of his trial would have been different?  
04-08-2019 No. 56 Comptroller of the Treasury v. Richard Reeves Taylor

Issues - Taxation – 1) Is the value of a surviving spouse’s interest in a QTIP trust created in another state properly included in the surviving spouse’s Maryland estate, and therefore subject to the Maryland estate tax? 2) Did the Tax Court improperly waive a late-filing penalty when waiver must be supported by “affirmative evidence” and the only basis cited for the waiver was the personal representative’s erroneous interpretation of the tax laws? 3) Is Petitioner’s taxation of the QTIP trust in the estate unconstitutional? 4) Is the fact that an issue was raised before the Tax Court, but not expressly decided by that agency, sufficient to permit review of that issue on appeal from the agency ruling?  
04-05-2019 Bar Admissions
 
04-05-2019 AG No. 3  Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Garland Montgomery Jarrat Sanderson
 
04-05-2019 No. 63 State of Maryland v. John Schlick

Issue – Criminal Law – Does a court lose revisory power over a criminal sentence “after the expiration of five years from the date the sentence originally was imposed,” as Maryland Rule 4-345(e) states, or does the court indefinitely retain “fundamental jurisdiction” to revise a sentence, which it is an abuse of discretion not to consider exercising, as CSA held below?  
04-05-2019 No. 67 Peter Gang v. Montgomery County, Maryland

Issue - Worker’s Compensation – 1) Does the language in Md. Code, Labor & Employment § 9-736(b) allow a revision of an Order within five years where both parties agree on the record that the prior order was a mistake regarding the prescribed rate of pay for a “public safety employee” and where this Court in Electrical General Corp. v. Labonte, 454 Md. 113 (2017), expressly held that the Commission has continuing powers and jurisdiction to modify prior findings or Orders?  
March 2019 Schedule
Date Docket # Title
03-04-2019 JD No. 1 In the Matter of the Hon. Devy Patterson Russell
 
03-04-2019 No. 55 In Re: Adoption Guardianship of H.R., E.R., and J.R.

Issues – Family Law – 1) Are the Department’s Permanency Planning Reports, which contain hearsay and double hearsay, inadmissible under the public records exception to the rule against hearsay? 2) Was CSA’s conclusion that the reports were admissible, based on its conclusion that they were an appropriate subject for judicial notice, in error? 3) Can the juvenile court admit documents for their non-hearsay purpose of forming the basis of an expert’s opinion and then, independently, rely on the evidence to support its basis for terminating a parent’s rights?  
03-04-2019 No. 58 Wallace & Gale Asbestos Settlement Trust v. William Edward Busch, Jr., et ux.

Issues – Torts – 1) May asbestos exposure to a specific defendant’s product be inferred from the defendant’s substantial presence in the facility? 2) Should juries be told that other defendants have been dismissed from the case when the complaints against them are admitted in evidence as admissions by the plaintiff?  
03-01-2019 AG No. 29 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Jon A. Lefkowitz
 
03-01-2019 No. 77 (2017 T.) In Re: Adoption/Guardianship of C.E.

Issues for reargument – Family Law – Whether the parental rights of both parents must be terminated in order to grant guardianship under FL §§5-323(b) and 5-325(a)(1), whether the termination of the parental rights of only one parent is required. See FL §5-323(b), stating "a parent is unfit..." and FL §5-325(a)(1), stating "terminating a parent's duties..."  
03-01-2019 No. 57 MAS Associates, LLC, et al. v. Harry S. Korotki

Issue – Corporations & Associations – Did the trial court misinterpret and misapply the Revised Uniform Partnership Act, in conflict with the LLC Act, by creating a partnership among three non-member employees of a longstanding LLC after their attempts to negotiate an amendment to the LLC’s 2004 Operating Agreement with its members failed?
02-28-2019 Bar Admissions
 
02-28-2019 AG No. 6

 		 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Raj Sanjeet Singh
 
02-28-2019 No. 60

 		 Elliot Dackman, et al. v. Daquantay Robinson, et al.

Issues – Torts – 1) Did CSA, in upholding the admission of the testimony of an expert witness, fail to follow the appropriate standards elucidated in Lewin Realty III, Inc. v. Brooks (138 Md. App. 244 (2001) aff’d. 378 Md. 70 (2003)) and Sugarman v. Liles (460 Md. 396 (2018))? 2) Does it violate due process and fairness, and is it a miscarriage of justice, for a trial judge to sua sponte amend the scheduling order solely to the benefit of one party, and extend that party’s expert designation deadline by over a year, while simultaneously denying Petitioner’s request to amend their own expert deadline, extend the discovery deadline, and postpone the trial to alleviate the prejudice?  
02-28-2019 No. 59

Please note: This recording is in two parts.

Part 1
Part 2		 Diane Steele v. Diamond Farm Homes Corp.

Issues – Corporations & Associations – 1) Was Petitioner’s defense to a suit for HOA dues, that she did not owe dues for the amounts of increases imposed without the supermajority required under the Declaration of Covenants, invalid due to ultra vires or laches? 2) Did the trial court err and abuse its discretion with an award of attorney fees against Petitioner, since Respondent submitted no affidavit, lost in district court, and the principal recovered was less than one third of the awarded attorney fees?  
February 2019 Schedule
Date Docket # Title
02-05-2019 No. 51 Tamere Thornton v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Did the trial court properly deny the motion to suppress on the grounds that Petitioner’s attempted flight from a pat-down, which the motions judge believed was based on “very questionabl[e] reasonable suspicion,” attenuated the link between any unlawful police conduct and the discovery of a firearm on Petitioner’s person? 2) Where it was never suggested in the trial court or on appeal to CSA that Petitioner’s attempted flight constituted a new crime, did CSA err in concluding that the flight established probable cause to arrest Petitioner for fleeing and eluding under the Transportation Article? 3) If Petitioner’s attempted flight did not provide probable cause to arrest him for the offense of fleeing and eluding, to what extent may flight in and of itself constitute an intervening circumstance for purposes of the attenuation doctrine? 4) Assuming, arguendo, that Petitioner’s attempted flight did establish probable cause to arrest him for fleeing and eluding, does the commission of any new crime attenuate the taint from an unlawful search or seizure, or only the commission of certain crimes? 5) Did CSA misapply the third factor of the attenuation doctrine (i.e., the purpose and flagrancy of the police misconduct)?  
02-05-2019 No. 50 Baltimore County, Maryland v. Michael Quinlan

Issues – Workers’ Compensation – 1) Did the trial court err in denying Petitioner’s motion for summary judgment, given the lack of a clearly defined occupational disease as the basis for the claim and evidence that the conditions were shown to be prevalent in all occupations involving heavy physical labor not uniquely related to the work of a paramedic or EMT as an inherent and inseparable risk? 2) Did CSA err in finding that Respondent met the statutory requirements set forth in LE §9-502(d)(1) and that he had sufficiently established at trial that his condition resulted from an inherent hazard of his employment as a paramedic or EMT? 3) Should this Court review the decision below under the statutory requirements and existing case law, particularly Black and Decker Corporation v. Humbert, 189 Md.App. 171 (2009), which similarly ignores the legislative requirement that a disease is only occupational if it is “due to the nature of an employment in which the hazards of the occupational disease exist” (LE §9-502(d)(1)(i)), to provide clarification and guidance on the requirement for establishing a legally sufficient claim for occupational disease?  
02-05-2019 No. 53 State of Maryland v. Willie B. Stewart

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) What is the proper analysis for determining when jury verdicts are legally inconsistent? 2) Where a verbal threat was the basis for the robbery and assault charges, but the jury was instructed that second-degree “intent to frighten” assault required a finding that Respondent committed an act with the intent to place [the] victim in fear of immediate physical harm,” did CSA err in holding that the verdicts of guilty of threat-of-force robbery and not guilty of assault were legally inconsistent?  
02-01-2019 No. 41 In Re: S.K.

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Did the juvenile court err in finding 16-year old S.K. involved in distributing child pornography as proscribed by Md. Crim. Law Art. §11-207(a), where she was both the sender and the only depicted minor, and where the act depicted was not in itself criminal? 2) Did the juvenile court properly find S.K. involved in the offense of displaying an obscene item to a minor despite the fact that, as the Court of Special Appeals held, the statute does not specifically state that it applies to “an electronically-transmitted digital video file”?  
02-01-2019 No. 54 Gordon Collins v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) In Pearson v. State, 437 Md. 350 (2014), this Court held that on request a trial court is required to ask whether any member of the venire has strong feelings about the crimes with which the defendant is charged. Did CSA err when it held that the trial court’s failure to ask the venire properly phrased “strong feelings” questions was not reversible error in light of the fact that the trial court asked the venire whether anyone in the venire or their immediate family had been the victim of a crime? 2) Did CSA err when it held that the trial court’s failure to ask the venire properly phrased “strong feelings” questions was not reversible error in light of the fact that the trial court asked the seated jury properly phrased “strong feelings” questions after the jury had been sworn and had heard opening statements? 3) Did CSA err when it held that the trial court’s failure to ask the venire properly phrased “strong feelings” questions was not reversible error in light of the fact that the trial court asked a number of other generic questions?  
01-31-2019 Bar Admissions
 
01-31-2019 AG No. 42 (2017 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Stuart Richard Blatt
 
01-31-2019 No. 46

 

 LVNV Funding LLC v. Larry Finch, et al.

Issues – Business Regulations – 1) Is a judgment obtained in favor of an unlicensed collection agency by a court that has fundamental jurisdiction over the cause of action void ab initio rather than voidable? 2) Can those sued by an unlicensed collection agency, and who suffered no other injury as a result, premise private claims under the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act (“MCDCA”) and on common law on nothing more than a violation of Maryland Collection Agency Licensing Act (“MCALA”), a statute that provides no private right of action? 3) Is an entity that owns consumer debt, and that retains a licensed collection agency to collect on that debt, nonetheless a “Collection Agency” under MCALA? 4) Did Petitioner assert a particularized objection to a jury instruction to preserve appellate review? 5) Did CSA abuse its discretion by disregarding the holding of Philip Morris USA v. Christensen, 394 Md. 224, 264-65 (2006) which adopted the doctrine of class action tolling in Md? 6) Does a party’s cause of action accrue before he or she has actual damages? 7) Did Petitioner present any admissible evidence to the trial court to support its affirmative defense that any subclass members’ claims were barred by the of statute of limitations?  
01-31-2019 No. 52

 

 State of Maryland v. Hassan Emmanuel Jones

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Should the accomplice corroboration rule that “a conviction may not rest on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice,” be revisited and either replaced or revised to allow the jury to measure the weight of the evidence and judge the credibility of witnesses, with appropriate instruction from the trial court to guide it in the consideration of accomplice testimony? 2) Was the testimony of Respondent’s co-conspirators sufficiently corroborated, and, therefore, the evidence sufficient to convict Respondent of conspiracy to commit armed carjacking?  
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”?