Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

In the context of a probable cause determination, the issue of a drug detection dog’s reliability is a legal question to be reviewed de novo.Sergeant Christopher Lamb initiated a traffic stop of a vehicle that Petitioner had been driving. A drug detection dog arrived at the scene of the traffic stop, scanned the vehicle, and alerted to it. Sergeant Lamb searched the vehicle and found drugs inside. The circuit court determined that the drug detection dog was reliable. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the ultimate question of probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of a vehicle based on a drug detection dog’s alert is reviewed de novo, but the issue of a drug detection dog’s reliability is a factual question, and accordingly, an appellate court reviews for clear error a trial court’s determination as to whether a drug detection dog is, or is not, reliable; and (2) the circuit court in this case did not clearly err in determining that the drug detection dog was reliable, and under the totality of the circumstances, that the arresting officer had probable cause for the search. View "Grimm v. State" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals reversed Defendant’s convictions arising out of a home invasion and robbery, arguing that the trial court erred in giving a missing witness instruction in this case.None of the victims of the crime at issue in this case identified Defendant as a participant in the robbery. Defendant testified that he had been at his mother’s home on the night of the robbery, but his mother did not testify. At the prosecutor’s request, the trial court gave a missing witness instruction that advised the jury that it could infer from the mother’s absence that she would have testified unfavorably to Defendant. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for entry of an order vacating Defendant’s convictions, holding that the trial court’s decision to give a missing witness instruction in this case was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. View "Harris v. State" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals reversed Defendant’s convictions arising out of a home invasion and robbery, arguing that the trial court erred in giving a missing witness instruction in this case.None of the victims of the crime at issue in this case identified Defendant as a participant in the robbery. Defendant testified that he had been at his mother’s home on the night of the robbery, but his mother did not testify. At the prosecutor’s request, the trial court gave a missing witness instruction that advised the jury that it could infer from the mother’s absence that she would have testified unfavorably to Defendant. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for entry of an order vacating Defendant’s convictions, holding that the trial court’s decision to give a missing witness instruction in this case was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. View "Harris v. State" on Justia Law

At issue was whether victim impact evidence in the form of a video displaying more than one hundred photographs of Defendant’s victims, with accompanying music, is permissible at a sentencing hearing.Defendant entered an Alford plea to two counts of first-degree murder, one count of robbery, and one count of child kidnapping. During sentencing, Defendant moved to exclude a video with approximately 115 photographs of the two victims set to background music. The sentencing judge allowed the video to be played. The Court of Appeals held that showing the video at the sentencing hearing did not violate Defendant’s constitutional rights. Specifically, the Court held (1) a sentencing judge has discretion to permit any additional form of victim impact evidence outside the constraints of Md. Code Ann. Crim. Proc. (“CP”) 11-402 and CP 11-403; (2) all prepared victim impact evidence, not including victim impact testimony, must be limited to the content prescribed under CP 11-402(e); (3) the Eighth Amendment does not prohibit a sentencing judge from considering victim impact evidence at a defendant’s noncapital sentencing proceeding; and (4) Defendant’s Fourteenth Amendment due process rights were not violated because the disputed victim impact evidence did not inflame the passions of the sentencing judge more than the facts of the crime. View "Lopez v. State" on Justia Law

The trial court in this criminal case did not err in admitting the testimony from the State’s cellular communication expert, Allen Hagy, and did not err in admitting evidence of Defendant’s silence during an investigation by his automobile insurer that was related to and concurrent with the police investigation in this case.After a third trial, Defendant was convicted of crimes associated with the murder of LaToya Taylor. The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, holding (1) the trial court properly exercised its discretion when it found that a sufficient factual basis existed in admitting Hagy’s expert opinion testimony, and the trial court’s decision to admit the testimony was not made in an arbitrary or capricious manner; and (2) there was no clear abuse of discretion in the trial court’s ruling to admit evidence of Defendant’s silence during the investigation by Defendant’s automobile insurer. View "Santiago v. State" on Justia Law

A conviction that is more than fifteen years old is not irrelevant as a matter of law to a character witness’ opinion about a defendant.After he was convicted for second-degree assault, Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court improperly admitted evidence of his 1990 battery conviction. The Court of Special Appeals held that the trial court was permitted to allow the State to impeach character witnesses with evidence of Defendant’s twenty-five-year-old battery conviction where each character witness testified regarding Defendant’s reputation for peacefulness. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not err in deciding that the 1990 battery conviction bore some legal relevance to the character witnesses’ testimony; and (2) the probative value of the 1990 battery conviction was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. View "Williams v. State" on Justia Law

Data from a business record indicating locations and durations of time determined by a GPS device carried by Defendant was admissible without the need for the State to present expert testimony to explain the operation of, and science underlying, GPS devices.Defendant, an officer with the Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) police, was convicted of assaulting and raping a woman after driving her home following her involvement in a traffic accident with an MTA bus. During trial, the State introduced GPS data from the mobile GPS device Defendant carried as part of his job that matched the itinerary given by the woman in her testimony. On appeal, Defendant argued that the State should have presented expert foundation testimony concerning GPS devices as a prerequisite to the admission of such evidence. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed the convictions. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the jury did not require expert testimony to understand the operation of a GPS device and the data it generated. View "Johnson v. State" on Justia Law

At issue was under what circumstances a defendant has properly invoked his right to request a discharge of counsel pursuant to Maryland Rule 4-215(e).The Court of Special Appeals vacated Defendant’s convictions because the circuit court failed to hold a Rule 4-215(e) hearing prior to Defendant’s trials. Before trial, Defendant sent two pieces of correspondence to the circuit court in which he expressed dissatisfaction with his counsel. The circuit court did not take action on either correspondence until after Defendant’s trials. After the trials had concluded, the circuit court denied Defendant’s request. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals, holding (1) Defendant’s two letters to the circuit court sufficiently triggered Rule 4-215(e); (2) Defendant did not waive his request to discharge his counsel when he did not repeat his request prior to or during his trials; and (3) the circuit court committed reversible error when it failed to inquire into the reasons for Defendant’s request in a timely manner. View "State v. Weddington" on Justia Law

At issue was whether the revised and consolidated assault statute, contained in Md. Code Ann. Crim. Law 3-201(b), contemplates different crimes or whether the acts constitute second degree assault.Petitioner was convicted of two counts of first degree assault. The trial court instructed the jury on two different variations of second degree assault, but the jury was not instructed to reach a unanimous decision about which version occurred. The Court of Special Appeals upheld Petitioner’s convictions. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the assault statute contemplates different modalities of committing the singular crime of second degree assault, as opposed to different crimes. Therefore, Petitioner was not entitled to have the trial judge instruct the jury to unanimously agree to which modality of assault Petitioner had committed. View "Watts v. State" on Justia Law

At issue was whether the revised and consolidated assault statute, contained in Md. Code Ann. Crim. Law 3-201(b), contemplates different crimes or whether the acts constitute second degree assault.Petitioner was convicted of two counts of first degree assault. The trial court instructed the jury on two different variations of second degree assault, but the jury was not instructed to reach a unanimous decision about which version occurred. The Court of Special Appeals upheld Petitioner’s convictions. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the assault statute contemplates different modalities of committing the singular crime of second degree assault, as opposed to different crimes. Therefore, Petitioner was not entitled to have the trial judge instruct the jury to unanimously agree to which modality of assault Petitioner had committed. View "Watts v. State" on Justia Law