September 2026 Maryland Certiorari Grants

The Supreme Court of Maryland yesterday granted review in six appeals. Again this term, the grant list involves an unusually high proportion of unreported Appellate Court opinions under review (five unreported, no reported).

The other grant, Hunter v. State, involves a bypass petition that the State filed as appellee. That unusual posture explains why, although the case is captioned in the Supreme Court with the criminal defendant listed first, the “question presented” is drafted in a way that suggests the State should win as appellee. In that posture, the State’s framing of the question will not bind the appellant in his brief. See Md. Rule 8-131(b)(2) (“when the Supreme Court issues a writ of certiorari to review a case pending in the Appellate Court before a decision has been rendered by that Court, the Supreme Court will consider those issues that would have been cognizable by the Appellate Court”).

Maria Volpe, et al. v. Christine Hough, et al. – No. 28, September Term, 2026 (Unreported ACM Opinion by Judge Reed)
Issues – Local Government – 1) Did the Appellate Court improperly find that the proposed usage “substantially impaired the integrity” of the general plan or the master plan as set forth in Prince George’s County Code 27-213(a)(3)? 2) Was the District Council and Zoning Hearing Examiner’s opinion supported by “substantial evidence”?

Chanan Zlotnitsky v. Limor Zlotnitsky – No. 29, September Term, 2026 (Unreported ACM Opinion by Judge Wright)
Issue – Family Law – Does Maryland’s doctrine of dissipation apply where one spouse transfers funds from a joint marital stock account to another joint marital stock account, where the funds first gained in value but later declined, and where there was no evidence that any funds were spent, concealed, diverted for a non-marital purpose, or used for that spouse’s personal benefit?

Stephen Hunter v. State of Maryland – No. 30, September Term, 2026 (Bypass)
Issue – Criminal Law – Did the suppression court correctly deny Appellant’s motion to suppress, where police stopped Appellant because they had reasonable suspicion that he was carrying a gun in his pocket?

Alphonso Ward v. State of Maryland – No. 31, September Term, 2026 (Unreported ACM Opinion by Judge Nazarian)
Issues – Criminal Law – From the petition for writ of certiorari: 1) When an appellant shows that a trial court abused its discretion by striking a prospective juror for insufficient cause, must the appellant also prove that the jury ultimately empaneled was not fair and impartial before obtaining appellate relief, or is reversal required upon a showing of either a clear abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge or prejudice to the appellant? 2) Did the Appellate Court err in denying Petitioner any appellate relief where, after holding that the trial court abused its discretion in striking that juror, the Court concluded that appellate relief was unavailable because there was “no basis on which to conclude that the members of the jury who served were unfair or partial or that the fairness and impartiality of the jury as a whole was compromised by the court’s decision”? From the conditional cross-petition for writ of certiorari: Did the trial court properly exercise its discretion in striking a prospective juror for cause where the juror’s responses to voir dire did not persuade the court that the juror would base his decision solely on the evidence at trial?

Kaleab Abebe Berhanu v. State of Maryland – No. 32, September Term, 2026 (Unreported ACM Opinion by Judge Berger)
Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Does testimony that a non-testifying forensic analyst “verified” the testifying analyst’s testing of the evidence in the case convey the substance of the absent analysts out-of-court statement for purposes of the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment and Article 21 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights? 2) May the State, consistent with the Confrontation Clause, introduce testimony that a non-testifying analyst verified the testifying analyst’s results on the ground that it rebuts doubt created by the defendant’s cross examination? 3) If the testimony was admitted in violation of the Confrontation Clause, did the Appellate Court misapply the harmless-error standard by concluding that any error was harmless because the jury could have inferred, from the testimony describing the laboratory’s requirement that all conclusions be verified, that the requirement was followed in Petitioner’s case?

Marlow Heights Shopping Center Limited Partnership v. Macy’s Retail Holdings, LLC, et al. – No. 33, September Term, 2026 (Unreported ACM Opinion by Judge Deborah Eyler)
Issues – Real Property – 1) Did the Appellate Court commit reversible error by holding that a 1959 deed that does not, on its face, purport to convey the easement sought by Appellees “can be understood … to effect the conveyance” of the easement because it incorporates generally, by reference a 1958 Memorandum of Understanding (the “MOA”), which also does not purport, on its face, to convey an easement? 2) Did the Appellate Court commit reversible error by relying on an equitable maxim (“equity treats that as done which ought to be done”) that has never been used for this purpose to treat the 1959 Deed incorporating the promise to convey a perpetual easement in the memorandum as having conveyed the easement? 3) Did the Appellate Court commit reversible error by affirming the Circuit Court’s rulings that this action was not time-barred?