Questions Remain About Self-Defense Jury Questions
There are very few dissents in the Appellate Court of Maryland: By my slapdash and amateurish count — which will have some built-in double-counting and so isn’t precisely accurate — out of 899 opinions of the court in 2023, there were only 7 dissents, meaning the panels disagree roughly 0.8 percent of the time. When one issue resurfaces in dissents twice within the same year, it’s worth taking note.
Byrd v. State, No. 1787, Sept. Term 2021 (App. Ct. Md. Jan. 23, 2023), last January contained some conflicting ink in regards to the “some evidence” standard to get a jury instruction relating to “imperfect self-defense,” an issue that was also in play recently in Hollins v. State, No. 2023, Sept. Term 2022 (App. Ct. Md. Dec. 14, 2023), albeit in regards to the alleged violent propensity of a witness. The case stems from a parking-lot fight between McDonald’s coworkers Isiah Hollins and Alexander Alvarenga that resulted in Mr. Hollins stabbing Mr. Alvarenga in the head six or seven times.
Read More…December 2023 Maryland Certiorari Grant
On December 18th, the Supreme Court of Maryland granted review in one civil appeal and also added an election law direct appeal to its February argument calendar. The certiorari grant and information related to the election appeal is below.
Read More…Case Update: Muldrow v. State.
On December 6, 2023, the Appellate Court of Maryland held that a trial court: 1) must voir dire the jury regarding bias against sexual orientation where it is likely to be an issue in the case; and 2) that a trial court must consider whether expert testimony is admissible under Daubert even where the testimony involves a “widely accepted” methodology. See Albert M. Muldrow, Jr. v. Maryland, _____ Md. App. ____, No. 1898, Sept. Term, 2021 (filed Dec. 6, 2023) (Getty, J.).
Read More…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.
Read More…Denial of a Detail and Implied Fabrication under § CJP 10-923: A Matter of First Impression
In Green v. State (No. 0854, September Term 2022), the Appellate Court of Maryland (ACM) decided, as a matter of first impression, whether the defendant’s denial of just one of the elements of the offense amounts to an implied allegation of fabrication necessary for the admission of a prior sexually assaultive act under Cts. & Jud. Procs. (CJP) § 10-923. The ACM also applied the Maryland Supreme Court’s recent decision in Woodlin v. State, 484 Md. 253 (2023), to decide whether the probative value of Green’s prior sexually assaultive behavior was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
Read More…Maryland Certiorari Statistics, 2021 and 2022 Terms
For several years, I’ve tracked the Supreme Court of Maryland’s petition docket. The judiciary’s annual statistical reports give the overall grant rate for civil and criminal certiorari petitions. Because unrepresented (pro se) parties file the majority of petitions each year, however, the overall statistics are not terribly helpful for lawyers in advising their clients regarding the odds of certiorari.
Below are the statistics for the Court’s 2021 Term (petitions docketed 3/1/2021 to 2/28/2022) and 2022 Term (3/1/2022 to 2/28/2023),[*] alongside the statistics for the 2020 Term (petitions filed 3/1/2020 to 2/28/2021) for comparison.
Read More…November 2023 Maryland Certiorari Grants (and a Notable Denial)
On Friday, the Supreme Court of Maryland granted review in two cases, both criminal appeals, on petitions filed by the Office of the Public Defender.
More noteworthy, however, the Supreme Court of Maryland today denied the State’s petition for “bypass” review of the Washington County Circuit Court’s order preliminarily enjoining the statutory ban on unlicensed shops selling hemp products with THC above certain levels.
Read More…Meet the Applicants for the Appellate Court (First Appellate Judicial Circuit)
Seven applicants have applied for the Appellate Court vacancy that will be created by the retirement of Judge Christopher B. Kehoe. The First Appellate Judicial Circuit includes Caroline, Cecil, Dorchester, Kent, Queen Anne’s, Somerset, Talbot, Wicomico and Worcester Counties.
The applicants are:
Read More…Recent Changes at Maryland’s Federal Courts
The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland recently announced changes in leadership. By federal statute, selection of the chief judge of the circuit and district courts is based on seniority and age. In each court, the most senior active judge under the age of 65 years may serve as chief judge for a period of seven years.[1]
Read More…Unreported Opinions Are Citable For First Time in Maryland on about 70% of Unreported Appellate Court of Maryland Decisions (and The World Did Not End)
By Michael Wein[*]
The Maryland Supreme Court approved a Rules Change (the specifics below), effective July 1, 2023, which for first time permits litigants to cite previous Appellate decisions for their “persuasive” value. These have generally been available online on the Maryland Judiciary’s website since May of 2015 and searchable since that time in the Maryland Daily Record, as well as Lexis and Westlaw. The proposed Rules presentation discussing this from February 2023 can be found on the Blog here.
Below is the final wording of Rule 1-104. (Without annotations)1
The Numbers in July, August, September, and October 2023 on Unreported Opinions Citable versus Per Curiam, Which Remain Uncitable
Beginning July 1, 2023, every unreported Opinion by the Appellate Court of Maryland (ACM) (formerly Maryland Court of Special Appeals), with the exception of per curiam decisions, states: “This is an unreported opinion. This opinion may not be cited as precedent within the rule of stare decisis. It may be cited for its persuasive value only if the citation conforms to Rule 1-104(a)(2)(B).”
Although the Maryland Supreme Court did not adopt all the recommendations of the Maryland Rules Committee, (again detailed below and a link to the zoom meeting here), there was a potential major exception to Rule 1-104 requested by the intermediate Appellate Court, and adopted by the Rules Committee, that still prohibits all citations to “Per Curiam” decisions. This was noted in the early blog piece, as a major potential loophole in the Rules proposal of it “Does not apply to Per Curiam Opinions in General (“Judge Per Curiam”).
Read More…
Maryland Appellate Blog 