February 2016 Maryland Certiorari Grants

By Chris Mincher

For those staying on top of the prosecutions of the police officers implicated in the death of Freddie Gray — which Michael Wein has been covering for the Blog — last week was a big development, as the Maryland Court of Appeals postponed their trials to consider (assuming the issue is even properly appealed at all) whether defendant William Porter can be compelled to testify in those trials if his testimony won’t be used in his own upcoming retrial. As the story has been reported pretty much everywhere, we won’t recount all the details here; instead, we’ll note that, the day after the Court’s decisions, it released a bunch of other certiorari grants spanning some noteworthy issues. Check them out after the jump.

Granted February 18, 2016

State of Maryland v. Brian Rice – Case No. 96, September Term, 2015

Issues – Courts and Judicial Proceedings – 1) Does Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, § 9-123 require a court to order compelled, immunized witness testimony after verifying that the statutory pleading requirements of the prosecutor’s motion to compel have been met, or does the statute instead permit a court to substitute its own discretion and judgment as to whether compelling the witness’s testimony may be necessary to the public interest such that the court may deny a prosecutor’s motion to compel even if the motion complies with the statute’s pleading requirements? 2) Whether the circuit court’s order denying the State’s motion to compel Officer William Porter to testify is appealable, i.e. whether the order is a final judgment or an interlocutory order subject to appeal or an order appealable on any other basis?

State of Maryland v. Edward Nero – Case No. 97, September Term, 2015

Issues – Courts and Judicial Proceedings – 1) Does Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, § 9-123 require a court to order compelled, immunized witness testimony after verifying that the statutory pleading requirements of the procecutor’s motion to compel have been met, or does the statute instead permit a court to substitute its own discretion and judgment as to whether compelling the witness’s testimony may be necessary to the public interest such that the court may deny a prosecutor’s motion to compel even if the motion complies with the statute’s pleading requirements? 2) Whether the circuit court’s order denying the State’s motion to compel Officer William Porter to testify is appealable, i.e. whether the order is a final judgment or an interlocutory order subject to appeal or an order appealable on any other basis?

State of Maryland v. Garrett Miller – Case No. 98, September Term, 2015

Issues – Courts and Judicial Proceedings – 1) Does Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, § 9-123 require a court to order compelled, immunized witness testimony after verifying that the statutory pleading requirements of the procecutor’s motion to compel have been met, or does the statute instead permit a court to substitute its own discretion and judgment as to whether compelling the witness’s testimony may be necessary to the public interest such that the court may deny a prosecutor’s motion to compel even if the motion complies with the statute’s pleading requirements? 2) Whether the circuit court’s order denying the State’s motion to compel Officer William Porter to testify is appealable, i.e. whether the order is a final judgment or an interlocutory order subject to appeal or an order appealable on any other basis?

Alicia White v. State of Maryland; Caesar Goodson v. State of Maryland – Case No. 99, September Term, 2015

Issues – Courts and Judicial Proceedings – 1) Does Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, § 9-123 provide Porter sufficient protection against self-incrimination to allow his testimony to be compelled in the trials of Caesar Goodson and Alicia White?

Granted February 19, 2016

Daniela Bottini and Gianpaolo Bottini v. Department of Finance, Montgomery County, Maryland – Case No. 3, September Term, 2016

Issues – Criminal Procedure – 1) Did CSA erroneously conclude that a seized bank account was “money” within the meaning of Md.’s CDS forfeiture statute where different deadlines for filing a forfeiture petition apply to “money” than to other types of tangible or intangible personal property? 2) Did CSA erroneously apply to Petitioners’ seized bank account the longer post-conviction forfeiture petition filing deadline for “money”?

Wendy Cane v. EZ Rentals – Case No. 1, September Term, 2016

Issues – Real Property – 1) Did the trial court err in denying Petitioner the opportunity to assert and prove a defense under the Rent Escrow Statute to the landlord’s summary ejectment action? 2) Did the trial court err in denying Petitioner’s defense seeking rent offsets in the summary ejectment action?

Maryland Commissioner of Financial Regulation v. Brown, Brown & Brown, P.C., et al. – Case No. 102, September Term, 2015

Issues – Commercial Law – 1) Does the Maryland Credit Services Businesses Act apply to providers of loan modification services? 2) Where the Maryland Credit Services Businesses Act expressly exempts from its coverage only attorneys who meet specified statutory criteria, are attorneys who do not satisfy those criteria subject to the statute?

Brenda Smith v. Delaware North Companies, et al. – Case No. 103, September Term, 2015

Issues – Health Occupations – 1) Does the privilege set forth under § 14-410 of the Health Occupations Article (“H.O.”) bar the admission of evidence of a Board of Physicians Consent Order to impeach a physician who is offering testimony as an expert witness? 2) Was the privilege set forth under § 14-410 intended to be strictly limited to medical malpractice actions?

Spaw, LLC v. City of Annapolis – Case No. 2, September Term, 2016

Issues – Local Government – 1) Did the trial court err by failing to dismiss the city’s civil citation for a municipal infraction against Petitioner under § 6-103 of the Local Government Article (“L. G.”) and awarding the city broad injunctive relief? 2) Did the trial court err in holding that abatement of a municipal infraction is not a “penalty” under L. G. § 6-110 for the purpose of applying the one year statute of limitations in § 5-107 of the Courts & Judicial Proceedings Article? 3) Did the trial court err by ignoring newly amended Md. Rules 2-501, which excludes the filing of a motion for summary judgment “after evidence is received at trial on the merits,” when the trial court granted summary judgment in the middle of trial before Petitioner could either respond in writing or present any evidence? 4) Did the trial court err in holding that municipal infractions were civil matters subject to Title 2 of the Md. Rules?

State of Maryland v. James Leslie Adams-Bey, Jr. – Case No. 105, September Term, 2015

Issue – Criminal Procedure – Where the legislature has mandated that a trial court “may reopen a postconviction proceeding … if the court determines that the action is in the interests of justice,” did CSA err when it ordered the trial court on remand to reopen Respondent’s postconviction proceeding?

State of Maryland v. Tevin Hines – Case No. 4, September Term, 2016

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) In a joint trial, was the trial court within its discretion in admitting a co-defendant’s exculpatory statement which did not mention Respondent, but did mention the street where Respondent lived? 2) Was any error in admitting the co-defendant’s statement harmless?

State of Maryland v. Lawrence Johnson – Case No. 106, September Term, 2015

Issues – Criminal Procedure – 1) As a matter of first impression, where a defendant waives all post-conviction rights as part of a sentencing agreement, does the waiver include the right to pursue post-conviction relief on claims arising from § 7-106 of the Criminal Procedure Article? 2) Where the legislature has mandated that a trial court “may reopen a postconviction proceeding … if the court determines that the action is in the interests of justice,” did CSA err when it ordered the trial court on remand to treat Respondent’s first petition for postconviction relief as a motion to reopen a postconviction proceeding?

State of Maryland v. Juan Carlos Sanmartin Prado – Case No. 100, September Term, 2015

Issue – Criminal Law – Did CSA incorrectly hold that trial counsel’s advisement – that there “could and probably would be immigration consequences” to the defendant’s conviction for a “deportable” or “potentially deportable” offense – was constitutionally deficient because counsel “qualified” his advice and “did not provide him with the ‘correct available advice about the deportation risk’”?

United Insurance Company of America, and The Reliable Life Insurance Company v. The Maryland Insurance Administration, and Therese Goldsmith, in her official capacity as Commissioner – Case No. 101, September Term, 2015

Issue – Courts and Judicial Proceedings – Must a party who challenges the constitutionality and retroactive effect of a newly-enacted Maryland statute exhaust administrative remedies of those challenges before a court can resolve them in a declaratory judgment action?