June 2026 Maryland Certiorari Grants

On Thursday, the Supreme Court of Maryland granted review in three criminal appeals and one civil appeal. In all three criminal appeals, the Office of the Public Defender filed the petitions, two involving voir dire questioning. The Appellate Court opinions in all four appeals were unreported, and all four are scheduled to be argued in October.

Charles Anderson v. State of Maryland – No. 7, September Term, 2026 (Unreported ACM Opinion by Senior Judge McDonald)
Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Did defense counsel’s objection preserve an exception to testimony that Baltimore City police have a “truth-telling” policy? 2) As a matter of first impression, does Spain v. State, 386 Md. 145 (2005), allow a detective to bolster police witness credibility by telling jurors there is a “departmental policy” requiring police to tell the truth, and that detectives are “subject to termination” if they lie?

Frederick Earl Elliott v. State of Maryland – No. 8, September Term, 2026 (Unreported ACM Opinion by Judge Stephen Kehoe; dissent by Senior Judge Raker)
Issues – Criminal Law – 1) For purposes of determining whether a prospective juror should be excused for cause, does a rebuttable presumption of bias arise where the juror discloses during voir dire that she was the victim of a crime very similar to the crime charged in the case on trial? 2) Where Petitioner was charged with assaulting his wife and mother-in-law with a firearm, did the trial court abuse its discretion in refusing to excuse for cause a prospective juror who was the victim of a very similar act of domestic violence in a case then pending before the same trial judge? 3) Did ACM err in holding that Petitioner failed to preserve the argument that the trial court insufficiently questioned the prospective juror?

Jewel Crowder v. State of Maryland – No. 9, September Term, 2026 (Unreported ACM Opinion by Judge Tang)
Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Does the ACM’s holding in Logan v. State, 164 Md. App. 1 (2006), control whether the trial court must conduct voir dire on whether the venire has strong feelings on an anticipated defense or does the SCM’s later decision affirming Logan control? 2) When the only issue in a murder trial is the viability of a defense, must a court, on request, probe the venire’s bias against that defense? 3) In voir dire, are defenses ever a mandated area of inquiry? 4) Did the trial court err in refusing to ask the venire about strong feelings on deadly force in self-defense or defense of others?

Corenic Construction Group, LLC v. Single Point Construction, LLC – No. 10, September Term, 2026 (Unreported ACM Opinion by Judge Leahy)
Issues – Contracts – 1) Did ACM improperly interpret unambiguous contract terms to relieve Respondent of obligations it assented to, but subsequently changed its mind about or regretted? 2) Did ACM exceed its authority by sua sponte vacating a decision of the trial court that was not raised by either party on appeal or in its appeal briefing?