November 2023 Maryland Certiorari Grants (part 2)

On November 29th, the Supreme Court of Maryland granted review in two additional cases, one criminal appeal and one civil appeal on bypass from the circuit court.

The two certiorari grants, with a link to the Appellate Court decision under review, are below.

Darryl Edward Freeman v. State of Maryland – Case No. 24, September Term, 2023 (Unreported ACM Opinion by Judge Alpert)

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Where a witness is not disclosed in discovery or offered at trial as an expert, does Md. law recognize a theory that such a witness may “implicitly” be found to be an expert and therefore provide opinion testimony? 2) Assuming that such an implicit finding is valid, by what means does an opposing party determine the field or area of the witness’s alleged expertise? 3) In the instant case was the detective, who was not disclosed or offered as an expert, properly permitted to testify that in his opinion the words “lick” and “sweet licks,” referred to in text messages between petitioner and his alleged co-conspirators, meant “robbery” and “robbery of an easy target” respectively? 4) Regardless of whether the trial judge makes an implicit or explicit finding, does the State’s noncompliance with Md. Rule 4-263(d)(8) preclude the calling of an expert witness? 5) May a lay witness testify to the meaning of a slang term with which the witness is familiar? 6) Did the trial court in this case properly permit the detective to give lay opinion testimony that the word “lick” means “a robbery”?

Madelyn Bennett, Individually and As Successor Trustee of the Pauline A. Bennett Revocable Living Trust v. Thomas A. Gentile – Case No. 25, September Term, 2023

Issues – Estates & Trusts – 1) Was petitioner an intended third-party beneficiary of an oral retainer agreement between the Trust Settlor and respondent? 2) Does Noble v. Bruce, 349 Md. 730 (1998), apply to the unique facts of this case? 3) Should Noble be overturned and replaced with the “balancing of factors” test adopted by other state courts? 4) Can the collateral litigation doctrine apply when the collateral claim which is litigated in the case is the source of that claim?