Justia Maryland Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the court of special appeals affirming Defendant's conviction of first-degree murder and related gun offenses, holding that it was not reversible error for a circuit court to give a destruction or concealment of evidence jury instruction based on evidence that Defendant cut off his dreadlocks between the time of the crime and the arrest.At the time of the shooting leading to Defendant's convictions, Defendant wore dreadlocks. One month later, a witness recognized Defendant with a very short, close-cropped haircut and called 911. Defendant was arrested, charged, and convicted. The court of special appeals affirmed, ruling that there was sufficient evidence to generate a destruction or concealment of evidence jury instruction, but it would have been preferable to have customized the jury instruction to describe with specificity the cutting of hair between the time of the crime and the arrest. The court then ruled that any instructional error was harmless. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that it would have been more precise for the circuit court to have tailored the consciousness of guilt instruction specifically describe a change in appearance instead of a destruction or concealment of evidence, but any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. View "Rainey v. State" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the court of special appeals ruling that it is possible for an accessory before the fact to aid, on impulse and without premeditation, another in the commission of a homicide with the intent to kill, holding that a defendant may be liable as an accessory before the fact to second-degree murder.After a trial, the jury found Defendant guilty of two counts of second-degree murder. On appeal, Defendant argued that an accessory before the fact to second-degree intent to kill murder cannot be guilty of second-degree murder because he necessarily deliberates and premeditates the murder. The court of special appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that, based on the Court's holdings in Mitchell v. State, 363 Md. 130 (2001) and Apostoledes v. State, 323 Md. 456 (1992), an accessory before the fact does not necessarily premeditate. View "Garcia v. State" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals vacated the judgment of the court of special appeals concluding that Defendant had waived his right to appeal the denial of his suppression motion, holding that Defendant did not waive his right to appeal the suppression ruling.Defendant, who was indicted on charges of possessing a regulated firearm after having been convicted of a crime of violence and other crimes, moved to suppress the gun and loaded magazine that police recovered inside a closed overnight bag during a warrantless search of Defendant's hotel room. The trial judge denied the motion to suppress. Thereafter, the State filed a superseding indictment under a new case number to add additional charges. When Defendant renewed his motion to suppress the transcript and all exhibits from the motion filed in the first case were admitted and incorporated into the record. The handgun and magazine were admitted into evidence during Defendant's ensuing trial. The court of special appeals denied Defendant's appeal, concluding that Defendant waived his right to appeal the suppression ruling by making no objection to the introduction of the challenged evidence at trial. The Court of Appeals vacated the decision below, holding that Defendant did not waive his right to appeal the suppression ruling. View "Huggins v. State" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the court of special appeals reversing Defendant's conviction for various crimes related to the murders of two high school seniors, holding that the court of special appeals erred in reversing the convictions.On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court abused its discretion when it refused to allow Defendant to cross-examine one of the State's witnesses about out-of-court statements allegedly made by one of his co-defendants and by allowing a lay witness to testify that a cellphone user such as himself has the ability to turn off location tracking associated with the user's Google accounts. The court of special appeals agreed and ordered a new trial. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding (1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by limiting the proposed cross-examination; and (2) a user's ability to adjust the location tracking feature of a smartphone is within the understanding of the average lay person, and therefore, a witness whose testimony referred to that ability was not required to qualify as an expert. View "State v. Galicia" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the court of special appeals reversing Defendant's conviction for murder and related charges on the grounds that the trial court erred in admitting certain expert testimony, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the expert testimony.At issue was the trial court's admission of expert testimony concerning the reverse projection photogrammetry analysis performed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the height estimate of the suspect resulting from that analysis. In reversing Defendant's conviction, the court of special appeals concluded that the height measurement was unreliable and therefore inadmissible under Rochkind v. Stevenson, 471 Md. 1 (2020), and Maryland Rule 5-702. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its broad discretion in admitting the expert testimony in question. View "State v. Matthews" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the court of special appeals reversing the judgment of the circuit court, sitting as the juvenile court, denying D.D.'s motion to suppress evidence of a loaded gun found by law enforcement officers in D.D.'s waistband, holding that there was no constitutional violation in this case.At issue in this case was whether this Court should extend the holding in Lewis v. State, 470 Md. 1 (2020), that the odor of marijuana alone does not provide probable cause to believe that the person is in possession of a criminal amount of the drug, to an investigatory detention. In reversing the juvenile court's denial of D.D.'s suppression motion, the court of special appeals held that the investigatory detention of D.D., which was based solely on the order of marijuana, violated the Fourth Amendment. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding (1) the odor of marijauna provides reasonable suspicion of criminal activity sufficient to conduct a brief investigatory detention; and (2) the officers in the instant case had reasonable suspicion to detain D.D., and therefore, the pat-down that led to the discovery of the gun on D.D. was also reasonable. View "In re D.D." on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the court of special appeals affirming Defendant's convictions for first-degree felony murder, first-degree burglary, and the theft of a Jeep, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.Specifically, the Court of Appeals held (1) Defendant's felony murder conviction was not preempted by the manslaughter by motor vehicle statute; (2) Defendant's sentence of life in prison with the possibility of parole was not unconstitutional under either the Eighth Amendment or Article 25 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights; and (3) Defendant was not entitled to an individualized sentencing proceeding under Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012). View "Harris v. State" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the court of special appeals, which affirmed Defendants' convictions of possessing a firearm, holding that the State provided sufficient evidence to establish that Defendants knew they were prohibited from possessing a firearm.Defendants Mashour Howling and Funiba Abangnelah each possessed a firearm at the time of arrest despite being disqualified to do so. In separate jury trials, both Defendants unsuccessfully requested that the respective circuit courts give a jury instruction incorporating the reasoning of Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019), where the United States Supreme Court held that the federal statute required proof of knowledge of possession of a firearm and proof of knowledge of the defendant's status as a person prohibited from possessing a firearm. After Defendants were convicted the court of special appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in declining to give Defendants' requested jury instructions. View "Howling v. State" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals held that, under Maryland law, an individual cannot be convicted of robbery by means of threatening force against property or threatening to accuse the victim of having committed sodomy.Defendant pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon. The federal district court sentenced Defendant to a term at the top of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines range after determining that he possessed the firearm after sustaining a felony conviction for a crime of violence, namely his 2007 Maryland conviction for robbery. The court then certified a question concerning Maryland robbery to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals answered the question in the negative, holding that, under Maryland law, an individual cannot be convicted of robbery by means of threatening force against property or threatening to accuse the victim of having committed sodomy. View "Dickson v. United States" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals affirmed Defendant's conviction of second-degree murder and possession of a firearm, holding that Defendant's contentions on appeal were unavailing.After a trial, the jury found Defendant guilty of second-degree murder and possession of a regulated firearm while under the age of twenty-one and not guilty of first-degree assault and use of a firearm in the commission of a crime of violence. On appeal, Defendant argued, among other things, that the guilty verdict as to second-degree murder and the not-guilty verdicts as to first-degree assault and use of a firearm in the commission of a crime of violence were inconsistent. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the verdicts were not legally inconsistent; (2) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant's motion for a new trial based on the jury having allegedly returned inconsistent verdicts; and (3) the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions. View "Williams v. State" on Justia Law