Justia Maryland Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Respondent James Goldsberry, Jr. was tried before a jury in Prince Georgeâs County Circuit Court and convicted of second degree felony murder, conspiracy, attempted robbery and weapons charges. He appealed the judgments of conviction to the Court of Special Appeals, where he raised a number of claims. The appellate court found merit in some claims, and reversed some of the convictions. The court remanded the case for a new trial on the attempted robbery and weapons charges, but affirmed the conviction of second degree felony murder and conspiracy to commit felony murder. Both parties sought Supreme Court review of the case. The issues presented to the Court for consideration were: (1) whether the trial court violated Respondentâs Sixth Amendment rights to representation by his counsel of choice when it dismissed one of Respondentâs three privately retained attorneys; (2) whether the trial court erred in giving the jury an instruction on an unanimous verdict; and (3) whether the appellate court erred by holding Respondent was convicted of a ânon-existentâ crime of second degree felony murder predicated on attempted robbery with a dangerous weapon. The Supreme Court found that the trial court did violate Respondentâs Sixth Amendment right to counsel of his choosing, and that the appellate court erred in its holding regarding the felony murder violation. The Courtâs decision entitled Respondent to a new trial, and accordingly it did not address the propriety of the trial courtâs jury instruction.

Petitioner Stephen Norman and two others owned equal shares in Sussex Title Company. Respondents Scott Borison and the Legg Law Firm filed on behalf of their clients a proposed class action lawsuit against multiple defendants-companies, including Sussex, for their alleged participation in âthe single largest mortgage scam in Maryland history.â Respondents did not name Petitioner as a defendant in any version of their original complaint. However, in the second amended complaint, Petitioner was mentioned in certain allegations. Petitioner claims that respondents defamed him by republishing the pleadings to the press and on the internet, and by making verbal comments to the press about the lawsuit. The Supreme Court found that an absolute privilege applies to Respondentsâ challenged statements contained in the pleadings because they âreasonably contemplated [the] proceedingsâ of the class action suit. The Court affirmed the appellate courtâs judgment dismissing Petitionerâs defamation action.

In January, 2006, Appellee-Defendant Demetrius Daughtry was indicted with murder, robbery, robbery with a deadly weapon and use of a handgun in the commission of a violent felony stemming from the botched robbery and shooting death of Anthony Brown. Defendant negotiated with the State to plead guilty to first-degree murder and use of a handgun in the commission of a violent felony. The circuit court agreed with the terms of the plea agreement, and sentenced Defendant to a term of life imprisonment. On appeal of the sentence, Defendant argued that the guilty plea should be vacated because the circuit court judge did not determine "on the record that defense counsel had advised [Defendant] of the elements of first degree murder." The appellate court vacated the convictions, explaining that "all [Defendant] said [on the record] was that he had 'talked over his plea' with counsel. â¦[The court] did not, in any way, assure that he understood the elements of the charge of first-degree murder. â¦Consequently, the voir dire conducted in this case failed to show that the plea met the required knowing, voluntary and intelligent standard [of Maryland Rule 4-242 and relevant caselaw]." On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the appellate decision vacating Defendant's convictions, finding no indicia that Defendant made a "knowing and voluntary" plea.