November 2022 Maryland Certiorari Grants
On Friday afternoon, the Court of Appeals of Maryland granted review in two criminal and three civil appeals. The certiorari grants, with links to the Court of Special Appeals opinions under review, are below.
Robert L. Fooks v. State of Maryland – Case No. 24, September Term, 2022
(Reported COSA Opinion by Judge Nazarian)
Issues – Constitutional Law – 1) In view of existing Supreme Court precedent in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), and McDonald v. City of Chicago, Ill., 561 U.S. 742 (2010), and in light of the Supreme Court’s recent interim decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, No. 20-843, 597 U.S. — (June 23, 2022), what is the proper analytical framework to apply to constitutional challenges to Maryland’s firearms laws? 2) Did CSA fail to apply the proper analytical framework to the constitutional challenges in this case? 3) Is Md. Code § 5-133(b)(2) of the Public Safety Article unconstitutional, or unconstitutional as applied to this case?
Damien Gary Clark v. State of Maryland – Case No. 25, September Term, 2022
(Reported COSA Opinion by Judge Graeff, Dissenting Opinion by Judge Nazarian)
Issues – Constitutional Law – 1) As a matter of first impression, does requiring a criminal defendant to retroactively prove his desire to defy the trial court’s order against speaking with his attorney about his case during an overnight recess violate his constitutional right to counsel? 2) Does permitting counsel to neglect or waive his client’s right to speak with him during an overnight recess violate that client’s constitutional right to counsel? 3) Was the post-conviction court’s ruling that prejudice was found from trial counsel not preserving the issue for appeal correct? 4) Is not objecting to the violation of a criminal defendant’s right to counsel due to mere ignorance of the law deficient performance?
Jamaiya Oglesby v. Baltimore School Associates, et al. – Case No. 26, September Term, 2022
(Unreported COSA Opinion by Judge Friedman)
Issues – Torts – 1) Did the trial court abuse its discretion when it found that Petitioner’s medical expert lacked an adequate supply of data to opine as to the source and source causation of Petitioner’s lead exposure? 2) Did the trial court abuse its discretion when it held that Petitioner’s medical expert’s opinion regarding Petitioner’s IQ loss was inadmissible, when the medical expert relied on studies that Maryland courts have repeatedly sanctioned? 3) Did the trial court err when it granted summary judgment after it excluded Petitioner’s expert witness from testifying entirely where the expert had rendered other opinions wherein the jury could have found that Petitioner was injured from her exposure to lead? 4) Did CSA err in holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it excluded the testimony of Petitioner’s expert witness in its entirety, and that the trial court did not err in subsequently granting summary judgment?
Daquan M. Wallace, et al. v. State of Maryland, et al. – Case No. 27, September Term, 2022 – Petition and cross-petition granted
(Unreported COSA Opinion by Judge Nazarian)
Petition Issues – Constitutional Law – 1) Did CSA err in finding that constitutional claims against the State are not subject to Article 19 review? 2) Should a trial court enroll the entire judgment amount of the jury verdict, even when the verdict exceeds the Maryland Tort Claims Act (“MTCA”) cap, so that a plaintiff can exercise his right to apply to the Board of Public Works (“BPW”) to pay the entirety of the jury verdict? 3) Should a case be remanded for retrial where a verdict is partially reversed due to improper jury instructions, even though the remaining verdict exceeds the MTCA cap, so that a plaintiff can exercise his right to apply to BPW to pay the entirety of the judgment for all claims?
Cross-Petition Issues – Constitutional Law – 1) Did CSA err in deciding that Prince George’s County v. Longtin, 419 Md. 450 (2011), applies to the State, where that case recognizes a cause of action for a plaintiff injured by a “pattern or practice” of unconstitutional conduct of a local government, a holding that has no application to the State given the State’s sovereign immunity from suit and the General Assembly’s limitation of that waiver to the negligent acts or omission of State personnel within the scope of their public duties? 2) Was the evidence legally insufficient for a reasonable factfinder to conclude that the State had engaged in a “pattern or practice” of deliberate indifference to serious risk of harm posed by inmates to other inmates that caused Petitioner’s injury?
Board of County Commissioners of St. Mary’s County, Maryland v. Barbara and Christopher Aiken, et al. – Case No. 28, September Term, 2022
(Reported COSA Opinion by Judge Zic)
Issue – Real Property – Did CSA misconstrue the 1988 deed as a matter of law by failing to consider the language, intent, and surrounding circumstances to hold that a “public road” was established on the disputed property, where the road project was no longer feasible and the deed specifically stated that the property was no longer needed for a public road?