Justia Maryland Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

While making a delivery during the course of his employment, Appellant George Pool walked through a stream of running water that flowed across a parking lot. As a result, Appellant slipped and fell on black ice and suffered injuries. Appellant sued Defendants, the construction company that allegedly pumped the water into the parking lot and the owner of the parking lot, alleging negligence. Several additional defendants were subsequently added. The trial judge granted summary judgment in favor of the original defendants and the two defendants named in Appellant's amended complaint on the ground that Appellant had assumed the risk of his injury. Appellant appealed. The Court of Appeals (1) reversed summary judgment entered in favor of the original defendants because Appellant did not assume the risk of his injury as a matter of law; (2) affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of one later-named defendant and the dismissal in favor of the other later-named defendant; and (3) disavowed the reasoning related to assumption of the risk in Allen v. Marriott Worldwide Corp. View "Poole v. Coakley & Williams Constr., Inc." on Justia Law

Employee received two knee injuries while working as a firefighter for Employer. Employee filed claims with the Worker's Compensation Commission, requesting disability compensation for the loss of income stemming from each injury. The Commission ordered that Employee should receive temporary partial disability compensation for the period in which he worked light duty after both injuries. Employer sought judicial review. At issue before the circuit court was whether a loss of Employee's ability to work overtime, and its associated loss in overtime compensation, qualified as a lessening of Employee's wage earning capacity for the purposes of Md. Code Ann. Lab. & Empl. 9-615(a). The circuit court affirmed the Commission's order, ruling that the term "wage earning capacity" could fairly include overtime compensation. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the term "wage," as used in the phrase "wage earning capacity" in section 9-615(a), includes compensation paid for overtime hours worked prior to temporary partial disability; and (2) the Commission correctly determined that Employee's wage earning capacity was "less," under section 9-615(a), entitling him to compensation payment in accordance with the calculation scheme set forth in that section. View "Montgomery County v. Deibler" on Justia Law

Petitioner Shawn Johnson was convicted of robbery, conspiracy to commit armed robbery, and related offenses. At trial, the State admitted two inoperable cell phones allegedly used by Petitioner's cousin, who was a State's witness at Petitioner's trial. While the jury was deliberating, one of the jurors inserted his own battery into one of the cell phones, turned it on, and discovered information corroborative of the cousin's testimony. Petitioner moved for a mistrial, alleging that the action of the juror constituted an improper investigation, thereby violating Petitioner's constitutional right to an impartial jury. The trial court declined to declare a mistrial. The court of special appeals affirmed the conviction. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the mistrial without first conducting a voir dire of the jury to ascertain the nature and scope of potential prejudice resulting from at least one juror's exposure to the electronic data on the cell phone. View "Johnson v. State" on Justia Law

During Petitioner Darryl Harrod's first trial for possession with intent to distribute cocaine, a chemist called by the state testified and was subjected to cross-examination. A mistrial was subsequently declared. At the retrial, the trial court admitted the chemist's report and testimony without the presence of the chemist. Ultimately, Harrod was convicted of the charge. Harrod appealed, challenging the admission of the chemist's testimony and report. The court of special appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding (1) it was error to admit the chemist's report and testimony and report during Harrod's retrial because the State failed to provide the requisite notice pursuant to Md. Code Ann. Cts. & Jud. Proc. 10-1003; and (2) the error was not harmless because the report and testimony were adduced to satisfy proof of the elements of the crime. View "Harrod v. State" on Justia Law

This appeal presented the Court of Appeals with its first opportunity to interpret Md. Code Ann. Crim. P. 8-301, which provided for petitions for writs of actual innocence based on newly discovered evidence. The two Appellants in these consolidated cases were serving their respective sentences when section 8-301 went into effect. Both Appellants filed pro se petitions for writs of actual innocence, which the circuit court denied without a hearing. The Court of Appeals reversed the order denying one Appellant's petition and affirmed the order denying the other Appellant's petition, holding (1) the denial of a petition for writ of actual innocence is an immediately appealable order, regardless of whether the trial court held a hearing before denying the petition; and (2) section 8-301 imposes a burden of pleading such that a petitioner is entitled to a hearing on the merits of the petition provided the petition sufficiently pleads grounds for relief under the statute, includes a request for a hearing, and complies with the filing requirements of section 8-301(b). View "Douglas v. State" on Justia Law

Petitioner Kenneth Barnes pleaded guilty to third-degree sexual offense involving a minor under the age of fifteen. Following his conviction, Barnes was directed to register as a sexual offender. Barnes was later convicted of violating the registration statute and was placed on probation. A subsequent violation of that probation resulted in prison time. Upon being released, Barnes filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence, arguing that his probation and incarceration were the result of the erroneous imposition of the sexual offender registration requirement. The circuit court denied the motion, and the court of special appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals dismissed Barnes's case as moot, holding that Barnes's claim was not justiciable because he was not currently serving a "sentence" for the purposes of Maryland Rule 4-345(a), and therefore, there was no sentence for the Court to correct. View "Barnes v. State" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Petitioner Antajuan Wilson of first-degree murder and related offenses, including use of a handgun in the commission of a crime of violence. Petitioner appealed, arguing that he was entitled to a new trial on the ground that the circuit court erroneously refused to instruct the jury on the partial defenses of imperfect self defense and the rule of provocation. The court of special appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding (1) because the evidence was sufficient to generate the issue of whether there was a reasonable doubt that Defendant did not kill in self defense, the trial court erred by refusing to instruct the jury on the mitigation defense of imperfect self defense; but (2) the circuit court correctly rejected the request for a rule of provocation instruction. View "Wilson v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Petitioner Arthur White was convicted of first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit murder, armed robbery, and related offenses. The court of special appeals (1) affirmed the majority of Petitioner's convictions, but (2) reversed his convictions for first-degree murder and use of a handgun in the commission of a crime of violence after determining that the jury instructions and the prosecutor's argument to the jury were plain error. The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the court of special appeals and directed that Petitioner's convictions of murder and use of a handgun be reinstated, holding that the circuit court did not commit plain error during the jury instructions or during the prosecutor's rebuttal argument. View "White v. State" on Justia Law

In the circuit court, Appellant, a law firm, filed a motion to intervene in the case of Julie Zorzit v. John Zorzit (Appellee), seeking to recover counsel fees that it earned while representing Julie. The circuit court denied Appellant's motion and entered a judgment of absolute divorce and for ancillary relief. The Court of Appeals issued a writ of certiorari to address the issue of whether the law firm had the right to intervene in the domestic relations case in order to recover counsel fees. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part and vacated in part, holding that because the circuit court was authorized by Md. Code Ann. Fam. Law 7-107(f) to enter judgment in favor of Appellant and against Appellee, Md. R. Civ. P. 2-214(a)(2) provided Appellant with the right to intervene in the domestic relations proceeding involving Appellee and Appellant's former client, the "nonmonied" spouse. View "Tydings & Rosenberg, LLP v. Zorzit" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Petitioner James Sweetney was convicted of robbery and related offenses, including use of a handgun in the commission of a crime of violence. At issue on appeal was whether Petitioner's constitutional right of confrontation was violated when the trial court curtailed Petitioner's cross-examination of the State's detective regarding the contents of a search warrant return that directly contradicted the detective's direct testimony about recovering a key piece of evidence. The court of special appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in curtailing the cross-examination of the State's detective about ambiguous language in the out-of-court statement prepared by another law enforcement officer who did not testify at trial. View "Sweetney v. State" on Justia Law