Justia Maryland Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A county-owned police patrol vehicle was damaged in a single-car collision while Respondent, a county police officer, operated the vehicle under the influence of alcohol. The County, a self-insured entity, filed a complaint against Respondent seeking to recover the cost of repairs to the vehicle. The district court ruled that the County could recover damages against Respondent based on an exclusion in the self-insurance guarantee purportedly excluding or disclaiming all insurance coverage on the basis that Respondent operated his vehicle under the influence of alcohol. The circuit court reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Maryland's compulsory motor vehicle insurance scheme does not permit a self-insurer such as the County to disclaim or exclude insurance coverage in a self-insurance guarantee where an individual causes a collision while driving under the influence of alcohol; and (2) the exclusion in the guarantee in this case was invalid because it violated the state compulsory motor vehicle insurance scheme, was not expressly authorized by the General Assembly, and was against public policy. View "Montgomery Co. v. Distel" on Justia Law

In 2010, Wife filed an amended complaint for divorce, alleging that she and Husband were married in 1993 in a civil ceremony in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. At a merits trial, Husband contested the divorce on the premise that he and Wife were never legally married. The circuit court found that a valid marriage between the parties took place even though Husband was not physically present at the wedding ceremony because he participated in the ceremony by telephone. The court then entered a judgment of absolute divorce in Wife's favor. The court of special appeals affirmed the circuit court's judgment that the marriage between the parties was valid. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that, under the principles of comity, Maryland recognizes wedding ceremonies where the groom participated only by telephone. View "Tshiani v. Tshiani" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. The court of special appeals affirmed the conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that trial court (1) complied with Md. Code Ann. Crim. Proc. 3-104(a) when it allowed Petitioner to withdraw his request for a competency evaluation and afterwards did not make a competency determination on the record, because Petitioner's withdrawal of his request for a competency evaluation, in addition to the slight evidence on the record to support a finding of incompetency, supported the circuit court's acknowledgment that the issue of competency was moot and the presumption that Petitioner's competency was not rebutted; and (2) properly denied Petitioner's request for an instruction on legally adequate provocation because the evidence presented did not generate such a defense. View "Wood v. State" on Justia Law

Petitioner was charged with murder and other related offenses. During defense counsel's opening statement, counsel referenced Petitioner's willingness to take a lie detector test during his interrogation by the police. The trial judge gave a curative instruction to the jury immediately following the improper reference. Two days further into the trial, the prosecutor filed a motion for a mistrial for reason of that improper remark. The trial judge granted the motion. Petitioner subsequently filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that retrial was prohibited under double jeopardy principles. The court of special appeals affirmed, concluding that the trial judge properly determined that manifest necessity existed for a mistrial, and therefore, double jeopardy principles did not prevent a retrial. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in making a determination of manifest necessity to declare a mistrial where the judge considered his previously issued curative instruction and found it insufficient to cure the prejudice caused by defense counsel's improper remark. View "Simmons v. State" on Justia Law

In the second year following each Federal decennial census, the Maryland Constitution provides that the Governor and State Legislature shall reapportion the State's legislative representation in accordance with the State's current demographics. At issue before the Court of Appeals in this case was the validity of Maryland's most recently enacted legislative apportionment plan. Three petitions challenging the enacted plan were filed. After a hearing, a Court of Appeals' Special Master denied each petitioner's petition and issued his recommendation that the enacted legislative apportionment plan be upheld against each of the challenges. The Court of Appeals supported the order of the Special Master, holding that Petitioners' exceptions to the Special Master's findings and recommendations were without merit. View "In re 2012 Legislative Districting of the State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of multiple counts of second degree murder and other crimes. The court of appeals affirmed, concluding that the trial court erred in prohibiting Petitioner's cross-examination of a State's witness regarding the witness' expectation of leniency in a separate pending case should he testify against Petitioner but that the error was harmless. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding (1) the trial court erred in limiting Petitioner's cross-examination of the witness with regard to his expectation of leniency; and (2) contrary to the conclusion of the intermediate appellate court, the effect of that error was not harmless to the result of the trial. View "Dionas v. State" on Justia Law

Father filed a complaint for absolute divorce from Mother and sought sole physical and legal custody of the parties' two children. Before the merits hearing on Father's divorce petition, the circuit court ordered that a custody investigation report (the Report) be completed. Counsel's access to the Report was limited by the "Policy Regarding Distribution of Court Ordered Evaluative Reports" (the Policy), which the trial court relied upon to prevent Mother's counsel from receiving a copy of the Report. The trial court subsequently granted Father's petition for divorce and awarded him sole legal and physical custody of the children. Mother appealed, arguing that the Policy afforded her inadequate procedural protection. The court of special appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by applying the Policy to procedural matters that required the court to exercise its discretion, and this error presumptively prejudiced Mother. Remanded. View "Sumpter v. Sumpter" on Justia Law

Petitioner was convicted of second degree assault and sentenced to ten years in prison and three months probation. After Petitioner was sentenced, he tore up a copy of his probation papers while seated next to the exit door in the courtroom. Subsequently, while walking down a hall outside the courtroom, Petitioner threatened in front of a law enforcement officer to harm a witness/victim. The trial court revoked Petitioner's probation, determining that, through his actions, Petitioner committed direct criminal contempt of court and violated Md. Code Ann. Crim. Law 9-303(a), the retaliation statute. The court of special appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) section 9-303(a) does not require communicating a threat to a victim/witness or a belief that the threat may be communicated to the victim/witness, and in this case, Petitioner committed a threat within the meaning of the statute; and (2) the record did not support a finding that Petitioner was in direct contempt of court when he tore up his personal copy of the probation papers following his sentencing. Remanded. View "Hammonds v. State" on Justia Law

In completing their affidavits to an election referendum petition, two affiants provided partially incorrect zip code information. Both circulators' petition pages contained several thousand signatures of registered voters. Despite the incorrect zip codes in the circulator affidavits, the Montgomery County Board of Elections (MCBE) certified that 34,828 of the 48,935 signatures were those of registered voters of Montgomery County, more signatures than were required by law, and certified the bill for placement on the ballot of the November 2012 general election. Seeking to prevent the referendum, Montgomery County filed a complaint against the MCBE, alleging that the MCBE had unlawfully counted the voters' signatures on the circulation petition pages because the zip codes provided by the circulators were erroneous. The circuit court granted Respondents' motion for summary judgment, concluding that the petition pages containing circulators' incorrectly recorded zip codes were invalid. The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's ruling and upheld the MCBE's decision, holding that minor errors in the circulator affidavit will not invalidate petition signatures that are already certified by the appropriate administrative body. View "Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 35 v. Montgomery County" on Justia Law

BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc., a commercial wholesale retail center, offered a free supervised play area called the "Incredible Kids' Club" for children to use while their parents shopped. To use the Kids' Club, BJ's required parents to sign an agreement containing an exculpatory clause and an indemnification clause. Russell Rosen executed the agreement on behalf of his three minor children. Rosen's son, Ephraim, was allegedly injured in the Kids' Club. Rosen and his wife (the Rosens) filed a negligence action against BJ's, and BJ's filed a counterclaim against the Rosens alleging breach of contract for failing to indemnify, defend, and hold BJ's harmless pursuant to the indemnification clause. The circuit court granted summary judgment for BJ's. The court of special appeals struck down the exculpation and indemnification clauses and reversed. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the court of special appeals erred by invoking the State's parens patriae authority to invalidate the exculpatory clause in the Kids' Club agreement. Remanded. View "BJ's Wholesale Club v. Rosen" on Justia Law