Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

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

The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the court of special appeals affirming the judgment of the circuit court convicting Defendant of driving under the influence of alcohol per se and driving while impaired by alcohol, holding that the record supported a finding that police officers complied with the twenty-minute observation period set forth in COMAR 10.35.02.08G.Prior to trial, Defendant filed a motion in limine to exclude the results of a breath test on the ground that the twenty-minute observation period set forth in the COMAR regulation had not been complied with. The circuit court denied the motion. After he was convicted, Defendant appealed, arguing that the circuit court erred in admitting the results of the breath test. The court of special appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the alleged compliance or noncompliance with the twenty-minute observation period goes to the weight to be given to breath test results, not the admissibility; and (2) the circuit court made findings on the record that the officers complied with the twenty-minute observation period set forth in the COMAR regulation. View "Dejarnette v. State" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the court of special appeals finding that Petitioner waived his objections to the trial court's denial of his proposed voir dire questions, holding that Petitioner failed to preserve his claims based on Kazadi v. State, 223 A.3d 554 (2020).In Kazadi, the Court of Appeals held that, upon request, a court is required to ask potential jurors voir dire questions directed at a defendant's fundamental rights related to the burden of proof, the presumption of innocence, and the right not to testify and held that this ruling applied retroactively to cases pending on appeal so long as the relevant question was preserved for appellate review. In the instant case, which was pending when Kazadi was decided and in which the trial court declined Defendant's request to ask Kazadi voir dire questions, was whether Petitioner's claim based on the trial court's failure to ask questions required by Kazadi was properly reserved for appellate review. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Petitioner's claims were not preserved for appellate review under Md. Rule 4-323(c). View "Lopez-Villa v. State" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals held that a defendant's right to a unanimous jury verdict is violated when the State presents evidence of multiple incidents at trial to prove a single charged count in the absence of an election between the incidents or a special jury instruction.The court of special appeals affirmed the circuit court's judgment convicting Defendant of first-degree burglary, first-degree assault, and other crimes. At issue on appeal was whether the circuit court abused its discretion in failing to provide a supplemental instruction after the State argued in closing arguments that "the jury could rely on either of two distinct incidents to find [Defendant] guilty of the crimes that were charged as single counts." The court of special appeals determined that Defendant's encounters with the victim were part of a single continuous incident, and therefore, that a special unanimity instruction or election between incidents was not required. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Defendant's convictions did not meet this Court's constitutional standards for unanimity and must be vacated. View "Johnson v. State" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the court of special appeals affirming the judgment of the circuit court convicting Defendant of second-degree assault and misconduct in office, holding that there was no error.Specifically, the Court of Appeals held (1) where a conviction for misconduct in office is based on the corrupt doing of an unlawful act, the conviction for the "unlawful act" does not merge with the conviction for misconduct; and (2) there was sufficient evidence in the record to support Defendant's convictions for assault in the second degree and misconduct in office. View "Koushall v. State" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the court of special appeals affirming Defendant's conviction for gross negligence involuntary manslaughter but reversing his conviction for depraved heart murder, holding that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction for second-degree depraved heart murder.Specifically, the Court of Appeals held (1) the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant's conviction for involuntary manslaughter under both a gross negligence and failure to perform a legal duty theory of the offense; (2) legal duty involuntary manslaughter is not a lesser-included offense of depraved heart murder; and (3) Defendant's conduct did not constitute conduct that demonstrated an extreme indifference to the value of human life, and therefore, the evidence was not sufficient to support Defendant's conviction for second-degree depraved heart murder. View "Beckwitt v. State" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals held that this Court's holding in Kazadi v. State, 223 A.3d 554 (2020), applies to cases in which a defendant had not yet noted an appeal when the opinion was issued in Kazadi but had preserved a Kazadi issue at trial and that the Kazadi issue in this case was preserved for appellate review.In Kazadi, the Court of Appeals held that, on request and during voir dire, a trial court must ask whether any prospective jurors are unwilling or unable to comply with the jury instructions on the fundamental principles of presumption of innocence, the defendant's right not to testify, and the State's burden of proof. The Court of Appeals in this case held that, in light of case law from the United States Supreme Court and this Court and considerations of fairness, the holding in Kazadi applies to cases in which there had not yet been a final disposition, regardless of whether a notice of appeal had been filed at the time the opinion in Kazadi was issued and in which the issue had been preserved for appellate review. View "Kumar v. State" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the court of special appeals reversing the circuit court's judgment in favor of Plaintiff in this personal injury case, holding that the court of special appeals did not err or abuse its discretion.Plaintiff, who was injured while shopping at a supermarket owned and operated by Defendant, brought this suit alleging negligence and negligent hiring, training, and supervision. A jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiff. The intermediate appellate court reversed, concluding that the circuit court erred in denying Defendant's motion for judgment made at the close of evidence and in giving a jury instruction on spoliation. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the court of appeals (1) applied the correct standard of review when reviewing the circuit court's denial of Defendant's motion for judgment; (2) did not err in reversing the circuit court's denial of Defendant's motion for judgment; and (3) did not err in holding that the circuit court's spoliation instruction was prejudicial. View "Webb v. Giant of Maryland, LLC" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the court of special appeals affirming Defendant's conviction of illegal possession of a firearm, holding that there was no error.Specifically, the Court of Appeals held (1) the scope of the State's mandatory disclosure obligations pursuant to Md. Rule 4-263(c)(2) does not include jail call recordings held by a state correctional facility that has not reported to the State in a particular case; (2) under the circumstances of this case, the State exercised due diligence in disclosing the jail call recordings; and (3) even if the State violated its discovery obligations through its late disclosure, the error was harmless. View "Alarcon-Ozoria v. State" on Justia Law