August 2022 Maryland Certiorari Grants
Today, the Maryland Court of Appeals granted review in two civil cases and two criminal cases.
Bridget Romeka v. RadAmerica II, LLC, et al. – Case No. 16, September Term, 2022
(Reported CSA Opinion by Judge Deborah Eyler)
Issues – Health Occupations – 1) Did the trial court err by requiring a plaintiff with a retaliation claim under the Health Care Worker Whistleblower Protection Act, Md. Code §1-502 of the Health Occupations Article, to show that protected conduct was the but-for cause of the challenged personnel action? 2) Did the trial court err in awarding summary judgment to the employer, despite genuine disputes of material fact, on the grounds that Petitioner could not establish her retaliation claim as a matter of law?
Jennifer Rowe v. Maryland Commission on Civil Rights – Case No. 17, September Term, 2022
(Unreported CSA Opinion by Judge Ripken)
Issue – State Government – Does CSA have jurisdiction over appeals from circuit courts of petitions for judicial review of Maryland Commission on Civil Rights no-probable-cause findings in public accommodations discrimination cases?
State of Maryland v. Keith Krikstan – Case No. 18, September Term, 2022
(Unreported CSA Opinion by Judge Raker)
Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Was the evidence sufficient to find that Respondent engaged in an act inside of school hours that “involved” sexual exploitation, where he specifically opted to substitute in the class of a certain student and while in the classroom expressed jealousy about that student’s attraction to someone else, given that he was engaging in a sexually exploitative relationship by way of electronic communications with this same student outside of school? 2) Was the evidence sufficient to find that Respondent’s acts and statements in class constituted grooming the student, and does such grooming “involve” sexual exploitation where a sexually exploitative relationship is conducted outside of school?
Kevron D. Walker v. State of Maryland – Case No. 19, September Term, 2022
(Unreported CSA Opinion by Judge Battaglia)
Issues – Public Safety – 1) Do the destruction and expungement provisions of the Maryland DNA Collection Act, Md. Code § 2-511 of the Public Safety (“P.S.”) apply to DNA samples collected from a person pursuant to a search warrant after the person is arrested and charged, or do those provisions apply only to so-called “arrestee” samples, as the Act has been interpreted in regulations promulgated by the Department of State Police? 2) Did the lower courts err in concluding that P.S. § 2-511 does not contain an exclusionary rule for violations of the destruction and expungement provisions of the Act? 3) Assuming, arguendo, that the destruction and expungement provisions in P.S. § 2-511 apply only to arrestee samples, was the trial court’s finding of fact, that the DNA sample at issue here was not an arrestee sample, clearly erroneous; or, in the alternative, if the record is unclear as to whether the DNA sample was an arrestee sample, should the case be remanded for an evidentiary hearing, pursuant to Md. Rules 8-604, so that the court can receive evidence and make findings of fact as to whether the DNA sample was an arrestee sample or was collected from Petitioner pursuant to a search warrant for his DNA? 4) Did the trial court err in denying Petitioner’s motion to suppress DNA evidence?