October 2022 Maryland Certiorari Grants

On Friday, the Maryland Court of Appeals granted certiorari in two appeals, one civil and one criminal.

John Matthew Woodlin v. State of Maryland – Case No. 22, September Term, 2022
(Reported COSA Opinion by Judge Friedman)

Issues – Courts & Judicial Proceedings – 1) As a matter of first impression, under Md. Code §10-923 of the Courts & Judicial Proceedings Article (“CJP”), which permits the admission in certain circumstances of prior sexually assaultive behavior in prosecutions for child sexual offenses, what factors must a trial court consider in determining whether the probative value of that prior sexually assaultive behavior is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, and, specifically, is the similarity or dissimilarity between the two offenses one of those factors? 2) As a matter of first impression, how should trial courts apply these factors, including the similarity or dissimilarity between the two offenses, in determining whether the probative value of the prior sexually assaultive behavior is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, as required by CJP §10-923(3)(4)? 3) As a matter of first impression, if the trial court has determined that the probative value of the prior sexually assaultive behavior is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, how much of the factual details including the dissimilarities between the past and present offenses should be admitted at trial and what factors should be considered in making that determination? 4) Did the trial court abuse its discretion when it admitted evidence of Petitioner’s ten-year old sexually abusive behavior on an adult male which was substantially dissimilar from the child abuse for which he was on trial?

Prince George’s County Council, et al. v. Concerned Citizens of Prince George’s County, et al. – Case No. 23, September Term, 2022
(Reported COSA Opinion by Judge Adkins)

Issue – Local Codes – Did COSA err in holding that Council Bill CB-17-2019 violated the uniformity clause under the Regional District Act?