Justia Maryland Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellant was convicted of conspiracy to commit murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. Appellant filed a pro se petition for postconviction DNA testing of a broom and dust pan pursuant to Md. Code Ann. Crim. Proc. (CP) 8-201. The postconviction court dismissed the petition, concluding that Appellant did not have standing to file a petition under CP 8-201(b) because he was not convicted of a crime of violence. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) a defendant convicted of conspiracy to commit murder is not eligible to file a petition for postconviction DNA testing under CP 8-201(b); and (2) the postconviction DNA testing statute does not violate due process or equal protection rights under the United States Constitution or the Maryland Declaration of Rights. View "Washington v. State" on Justia Law

Following his arrest for illegal drug activity, Petitioner was released on bond and withdrew all of the money contained in two bank accounts. Law enforcement traced the money to Petitioner’s sister’s bank account and seized the bank account. Less than ninety days after the conclusion of Petitioner’s criminal proceedings, the Department of Finance of Montgomery County filed a complaint petition for currency forfeiture as to the sister’s bank account. Petitioner’s sister argued that her bank account was not “money” under Maryland's forfeiture statute and that the complaint for forfeiture was untimely filed. The circuit court rejected that argument and ultimately found that the funds in the bank account constituted illegal drug proceeds. The court, therefore, granted forfeiture of the entire amount. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the funds contained in a bank account are “money” for purposes of the forfeiture statute; and (2) the forfeiting authority timely filed the complaint for forfeiture of the bank account within the deadline applicable to the filing of a complaint for forfeiture of money. View "Bottini v. Dep’t of Finance, Montgomery County" on Justia Law

The Maryland Supreme Court granted the State’s petition for a writ of certiorari in this case to decide whether the Uniform Postconviction Procedure Act (“UPPA”) granted the Court of Special Appeals the authority to reopen a postconviction proceeding if doing so was “in the interests of justice.” The Supreme Court "easily" concluded that the UPPA did not. However, the Court of Special Appeals was statutorily authorized to review a circuit court's denial of a motion to reopen for abuse of discretion, and could remand the matter back to the circuit court with instruction to award appropriate relief if the circuit court abused that discretion. In 1978, Respondent James Leslie Adams-Bey, Jr., was convicted by a jury of first degree rape and related offenses, for which he was sentenced to life plus ten years of incarceration. Respondent petitioned unsuccessfully for postconviction relief in 2010. In 2012, Respondent moved pro se to reopen his postconviction proceedings on the ground that jurors at his criminal trial were given advisory-only instructions in violation of his constitutional rights to due process. Respondent argued that those instructions were unconstitutional because the jury was not instructed to follow the court’s explanation of the law and the court did not inform the jury of the binding nature of its instructions on the State’s burden of proof or the presumption of innocence. The circuit court denied Respondent’s motion without a hearing. On appeal of that denial, Respondent argued the circuit court abused its discretion by denying his motion to reopen. The Court of Special Appeals granted Respondent's application, and addressed the merits of his appeal, and reversed the circuit court's denial. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Special Appeals, finding it correctly concluded that the circuit court abused its discretion by denying Respondent's motion to reopen. View "Maryland v. Adams-Bey" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted of murder and related offenses arising from a failed armed robbery in 1994. Petitioner was sentenced to life imprisonment. In 2013, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of actual innocence under Md. Code Ann. Crim. Proc. 8-301, claiming newly discovered evidence in that the State’s ballistics expert falsely testified about his academic credentials at Petitioner’s trial. The circuit court concluded that Petitioner was not entitled to relief under section 8-301. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the hearing judge did not abuse his discretion in ruling that, under the circumstances of this case, Petitioner was unable to prove that the expert's lies about his academic credentials created a substantial or significant possibility that the outcome at trial may have been different. View "McGhie v. State" on Justia Law

After a trial, Defendant was found guilty of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute and possession of a firearm during a drug trafficking crime. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence obtained after a Terry frisk because the law enforcement officers did not have reasonable suspicion to justify the frisk. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress, concluding that the facts created reasonable suspicion that Defendant was armed and dangerous and that he had committed or was planning to commit a crime. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that, under the totality of the circumstances, the officers did not have reasonable articulable suspicion to frisk Defendant, and therefore, the Court of Special Appeals erred in concluding that the evidence was correctly suppressed. View "Sellman v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of, among other crimes, first-degree murder. As relevant to this appeal, the jury found Defendant not guilty of attempted robbery with a dangerous weapon and attempted robbery. Defendant filed a motion to strike, arguing that the felony murder guilty verdict was inconsistent with the acquittals of robbery and attempted robbery. The circuit court denied the motion to strike. The Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding that, by failing to object before the jury was discharged and the verdicts became final, Defendant waived any issue as to the allegedly inconsistent verdicts. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that, to preserve the issue of legally inconsistent verdicts for appellate review, a defendant in a criminal trial by jury must object or make known opposition to the allegedly inconsistent verdicts before the verdicts become final and the trial court discharges the jury. View "Givens v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was indicted for several drug offenses. Defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence seized by police officers from his person, alleging that his detention in handcuffs while in a car that he had been driving was searched constituted an unlawful arrest and that the evidence obtained by the officers were the fruits of that arrest. The motion to suppress was denied. Defendant entered a conditional guilty plea to one count of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the police officers possessed reasonable suspicion to stop Defendant and ask him to leave the vehicle based upon their belief that Defendant may have been armed and dangerous; and (2) the use of handcuffs per se does not ordinarily transform a Terry stop into an arrest, and the continued use of handcuffs by the police officers in this case constituted a Terry stop because of an ongoing concern for officer safety. View "Chase v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was indicted on several drug-related counts, which resulted in a two-day jury trial. During jury deliberations, the trial court received a jury note stating that the jury was deadlocked on a particular count (Count 1). Arrangements were made to bring Defendant to the courtroom, but Defendant had been transported to a hospital due to a medical emergency. The court summoned the jury foreperson to discuss the deadlock, and in Defendant’s absence, the judge accepted a partial verdict from the jury. Defendant was found guilty on three counts, and the trial court declared a mistrial on Count 1 on the ground of “manifest necessity.” The trial court subsequently ordered a new trial, concluding that it erred in receiving the partial verdict in Defendant’s absence. The judge, however, denied defense counsel’s motion to dismiss Count 1. The Court of Special Appeals reversed as to Count 1, concluding that, due to Defendant’s involuntary absence, manifest necessity did not exist to declare a mistrial as to Count 1, and therefore, retrial was barred by double jeopardy principles. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the trial judge erred in declaring a mistrial in Defendant’s involuntary absence without first continuing the case; and (2) double jeopardy barred a retrial of Count 1. View "State v. Hart" on Justia Law

After a deputy sheriff stopped Petitioner for a traffic violation, the officer inserted his head into the passenger side window of Petitioner’s vehicle. The officer detected the odor of marijuana, and Petitioner was placed under arrest. Petitioner filed a motion to suppress, arguing that an unconstitutional search occurred when the officer inserted his head into the passenger window. The circuit court denied Petitioner’s suppression motion. The court then found Petitioner guilty of possession of marijuana. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the circuit court erred in denying Petitioner’s motion to suppress because the evidence was unclear regarding the timing of the officer’s detection of the odor of marijuana, and in the absence of a finding that the officer detected the odor of marijuana before he inserted his head into the window, the State failed to satisfy its burden to show that the search was lawful. View "Grant v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of sexual abuse of a minor household member and several other sex offenses. Petitioner was sentenced to terms of imprisonment and required to serve supervised probation upon release with the condition that he have no unsupervised contact with minors. Petitioner appealed, arguing that the circuit court erred in prohibiting unsupervised contact with his minor son during probation. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the sentencing court did not abuse its discretion in imposing “a reasonable and narrowly-tailored condition of probation” that prohibited unsupervised contact with all minors, including Petitioner’s son. View "Allen v. State" on Justia Law