Justia Maryland Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

On April 12, 2015, Freddie Gray suffered an injury while in police custody; one week later, he died from those injuries. The state charged six Baltimore police officers in connection with Gray’s death. Officer Porter’s trial ended in a mistrial in December 2015. The state has indicated it will retry him and wants to compel him, before his retrial, to provide immunized testimony against the remaining officers. In two cases the trial court granted the motion to compel; in three cases it denied the motion. The Maryland Court of Appeals held that the state’s compelling Officer Porter to testify in the trials of his fellow officers, under the grant of use and derivative use immunity, does not violate Porter’s privilege against compelled self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment or the Maryland Declaration of Rights. The trial court lacks the discretion to deny a properly pled motion to compel immunized testimony. Denial of such a motion constitutes a final judgment from which the state can appeal immediately. Porter was the proper party to the appeal because he, not the defendants in the underlying trials, is the party interested in the subject matter of the motion to compel immunized testimony. View "State v. Rice, Nero, Miller; White & Goodson" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Petitioner was found guilty of two counts of sexual abuse of a minor. After the State rested its case, defense counsel moved for a judgment of acquittal, arguing that the only evidence of corpus delicti was derived from Petitioner’s extrajudicial confession and was not corroborated by independent evidence, and therefore, the rule of corroboration was not satisfied. The circuit court denied the motion, finding sufficient corroboration. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding (1) a witness’s testimony that he does not remember whether an act occurred does not constitute sufficient corroboration of an extrajudicial confession by the defendant that the act in fact occurred; (2) a criminal defendant’s uncorroborated confession does not constitute sufficient evidence to support a conviction for sexual abuse of a minor; and (3) in this case, the evidence was legally insufficient to warrant a jury verdict. View "Grimm v. State" on Justia Law

The assessment of real property in the State for property tax purposes is calculated by reference to the value on the “date of finality,” which is defined as “January 1, immediately before the 1st taxable year to which the assessment based on the new value is applicable.” Petitioner appealed her 2011 tax assessment of a condominium she owned and occupied. The Tax Court concluded that the Tax Property Article did not prohibit the court from taking into account sales of comparable properties that occur after the date of finality in determining the value of a property on the date of finality and, thus, relied on sales of comparable properties that occurred several months after the date of finality. The Circuit Court ruled that the Tax Court erred in considering evidence of post-date of finality sales of comparable properties. The Court of Special Appeals reversed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the Tax Court may consider the sale of comparable properties occurring within a reasonable time after the date of finality to assess the value of the property; and (2) substantial evidence in the record supported the Tax Court’s assessment of Petitioner’s property, relying on the post-date of finality sales. View "Lane v. Supervisor of Assessments of Montgomery County" on Justia Law

The parties in this dispute were a city and a design engineer. The city and the design engineer settled their dispute pursuant to an agreement that contained a non-disparagement clause. After the city released the design engineer from all claims relating to the earlier litigation, the city pursued a claim against the engineer’s construction manager for breach of contract. When the design engineer heard of the city’s disparaging statements made during the current lawsuit, it filed a complaint against the city for injunctive and monetary relief, alleging that the city breached the non-disparagement agreement during the current litigation. The circuit court denied injunctive relief and then granted the city’s amended motion to dismiss. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed, holding that no claim can stand for a deliberate and voluntary breach of a non-disparagement agreement when the disparaging statements are made in legal proceedings. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the litigation privilege can immunize a party from a claim for breach of a non-disparagement clause; and (2) the city did not waive the litigation privilege in this case. View "O'Brien & Gere Eng'rs, Inc. v. City of Salisbury" on Justia Law

The Consumer Protection Division of Maryland’s Office of the Attorney General (CPD) concluded that Petitioner and his companies engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices in violation of the Maryland Consumer Protection Act (CPA). The CPD issued sanctions, imposed civil penalties, and assessed costs. Thereafter, the Maryland State Board of Plumbing (the Board) opened a complaint against Petitioner alleging that Petitioner had violated the Maryland Plumbing act (MPA). The Board’s case largely consisted of the CPD’s findings and conclusions. The Board, by application of the doctrine of collateral estoppel, adopted the findings of fact made by the CPD and concluded that Petitioner violated the MPA. The Board revoked Petitioner’s master plumber license and imposed a civil penalty. The circuit court ruled that the Board properly invoked collateral estoppel in adopting the CPD’s findings of fact. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the doctrine of offensive non-mutual collateral estoppel is permissible in this State and can be invoked to grant preclusive effect to an administrative order; and (2) Petitioner’s double jeopardy protections were not violated when the Board and the CPD both fined him for the same conduct. View "Garrity v. State Bd. of Plumbing" on Justia Law

A Guy Named Moe, LLC (Moe), a foreign limited liability company doing business in Maryland, and Chipotle Mexican Grill of Colorado, LLC both operate a chain of restaurants. In 2012, Chipotle applied for a special exception to build a restaurant approximately 425 feet from Moe’s Southwest Grill. The City of Annapolis’s Board of Appeals unanimously approved Chipotle’s request. Thereafter, Moe filed a petition for judicial review. The circuit court dismissed Moe’s petition, finding that Moe lacked standing because it was not a taxpayer under Md. Code Ann. Land Use 4-401(a). The Court of Special Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the petition was void ab initio because, at the time it was filed, Moe’s had lost its right to do business in Maryland because of its failure to register; and (2) Moe was not "a person aggrieved" for standing purposes. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) Moe can Maintain its suit; but (2) Moe was not aggrieved for standing purposes. View "Guy Named Moe, LLC v. Chipotle Mexican Grill of Colorado, LLC" on Justia Law

Following the birth of twin boys in 2009, Petitioner executed an affidavit of parentage attesting that he was the boys’ father. In 2011, the Wicomico County Bureau of Support Enforcement alleged that Petitioner was responsible for support. In response, Petitioner denied parentage of the children and requested a paternity test, alleging that his signature on the affidavit had been obtained through fraud or misrepresentation. The circuit court judge ordered Petitioner to pay child support and denied the request for a paternity test. Two years later, Petitioner against requested a paternity test. The circuit court judge denied the request, concluding that Petitioner had no absolute right to blood or genetic testing and, even if he did, he waived his right by failing to appeal the trial judge’s decision in 2011. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that, under the circumstances of this case, Petitioner was not entitled to a paternity test to contest the parentage he established after execution of his affidavit of parentage. View "Davis v. Wicomico County Bureau" on Justia Law

In two cases before the Workers’ Compensation Commission, the Commission concluded that under Md. Code Ann. Lab. & Empl. 9-806, the amount owed to the Subsequent Injury Fund (SIF) by the employers in these cases - the Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) and Baltimore County - is 6.5 percent of the Commission’s award of compensation prior to the deduction of any statutory offset. The circuit courts affirmed the decisions of the Commission. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed. The MTA and the County each filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals granted certiorari in both cases and consolidated them in this opinion to address the question of whether the SIF assessment under section 9-806 should be calculated based on the amount of an award prior to the statutory offsets granted by Md. Code Ann. Lab. & Empl. 9-610 and 9-503(e). The Court answered the question in the affirmative and affirmed the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals. View "Injured Workers' Ins. Fund v. Subsequent Injury Fund" on Justia Law

Prince George’s County terminated the employment of Marlon Ford, a member of the County Police Civilian Employees Association, after a criminal investigation during which Ford was questioned regarding alleged crimes. The Association filed a grievance on Ford’s behalf. An arbitrator vacated the termination of Ford’s employment, determining that the County had violated a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the County and the Association because officers of the county police department failed to advise Ford of his right to have a representative from the Association present during the criminal investigative interview. The Court of Special Appeals vacated the arbitration award. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) under the County’s code, the County lacked the authority to enter into a CBA that requires a Weingarten advisement before a criminal investigative interview of one of the County’s police civilian employees; and (2) therefore, the arbitrator the arbitrator exceeded his authority by basing the arbitration award on the determination that the County violated the CBA because its police officers failed to make a Weingarten advisement. View "Police Civ. Empl. Ass'n. v. Prince George's Co." on Justia Law

Respondent was charged with second-degree assault and drug offenses. Respondent and defense counsel, a public defender, later appeared for a motions hearing, and defense counsel moved for a postponement, indicating that Respondent wished to obtain a postponement to hire private counsel that Respondent had retained in the past. The district court denied the request to postpone the motions hearing and denied Respondent’s request to replace his counsel. A jury subsequently found Respondent guilty. Respondent appealed, arguing that the circuit court failed to comply with Md. Rule 4-215(e) by never asking him why he wished to replace his counsel. The Court of Special Appeals agreed, concluding that defense counsel’s request for a postponement required that the circuit court permit Respondent to explain the reasons for the request and that this requirement was not satisfied at the motions hearing. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that, under the circumstances of this case, Rule 4-215(e) required that the circuit court seek an explanation for the request to discharge counsel from Defendant or ensure that Defendant agreed with the reasons proffered by defense counsel. View "State v. Graves" on Justia Law