June 2025 Maryland Certiorari Grants

On Friday, the Supreme Court of Maryland granted review in two civil appeals and two criminal appeals. The headline case is Santana v. State, in which Judge Nazarian authored a concurrence suggesting the case was an appropriate vehicle for the Supreme Court of Maryland to reconsider the Double Jeopardy standard for when a defendant claims that the State’s recklessness forced a mistrial.

Friday also marked the first time, since Justice Michele Hotten retired from the Supreme Court of Maryland, that certiorari was granted to review an Appellate Court decision she authored.

Miguel Angel Santana v. State of Maryland – Case No. 19, September Term, 2025 (Unreported ACM Opinion by Judge Shaw; Concurrence by Judge Nazarian)
Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Should Maryland’s double jeopardy common law bar retrial after a mistrial requested by the defendant where the mistrial was caused by the State’s recklessness? 2) In light of the clear evidence that the State’s recklessness caused the mistrial, should this Court reverse the denial of Petitioner’s motion to dismiss?

Gary Wilson v. Tanglewood Venture, LP – Case No. 20, September Term, 2025 (Certiorari to Circuit Court)
Issues – Real Property – 1) May a court, upon request of an unlicensed landlord, require a tenant to pay rent under the rent escrow law, Md. Code, Real Property § 8-211? 2) For the purposes of determining an on-the-record versus de novo appeal, how is the amount in controversy determined in an escrow matter when the Parties’ claims differ from the amount of rent ordered to be placed into escrow and the amount placed in escrow? 3) Is an appeal of a rent escrow matter moot if, even though dangerous conditions continue unabated, the landlord agrees on appeal not to seek the rent for the unlicensed period subject to escrow or if there are collateral consequences to the trial court’s dismissal of the escrow?

Carefirst BlueChoice, Inc. v. Matthew Skipper, et al. – Case No. 21, September Term, 2025 (Reported ACM Opinion by Justice Hotten)
Issues – Insurance Law – 1) Did ACM err when it applied the incorrect standard to its analysis of whether Respondents’ complaint stated claims for breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation? 2) Did ACM erroneously conclude that the Respondents’ claims for breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation did not fail as a matter of law based on a misinterpretation of COMAR § 31.11.06.06(B)(11) and Md. Insurance Administration Bulletin 13-01? 3) Did ACM err when it held that the mere possibility that Respondents could be entitled to pre-judgment interest is sufficient to confer standing and seek class certification under Md. law? 4) Did ACM err when, relying on Frazier v. Castle Ford, Ltd., 430 Md. 144 (2013), it found Respondents had standing to pursue their claims against Petitioner?

Donte Demont Strand v. State of Maryland – Case No. 22, September Term, 2025 (Unreported ACM Opinion by Judge Friedman)
Issues – Criminal Law – 1) In a theft prosecution, where the State alleges a specific item stolen, but fails to prove what was stolen, should trial courts apply an essential element variance analysis or a substantial prejudice variance analysis? 2) If the trial courts apply a substantial prejudice variance analysis, was Petitioner misled such that he could not lodge an effective defense or exposed to double jeopardy where the State alleged specific items stolen but failed to prove the identity of what was taken? 3) Where an indictment for theft alleges specific items stolen but fails to prove the identity of the item stolen, is the evidence sufficient to convict? 4) Where the consolidated theft statute defines property as “anything of value”, is it a rational inference that any unidentified tangible item has value because every tangible item invariably has an ascertainable replacement cost, or does the value of an item require some evidence?