Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming Defendant's conviction of first-degree murder, holding that this Court's holding in Kazadi v. State, 223 A.3d 554 (Md. 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.In Kazadi, the Court of Appeals held that, on request and during voir dire, a trial court must asking whether prospective jurors are unwilling or unable to comply with the jury instructions on the fundamental principles of presumption of innocence, the State's burden of proof, and the defendant's right not to testify. The Court later stated that that the holding would apply to any cases pending on direct appeal when the opinion was filed and the relevant question had been preserved for review. In the instant case, the court of special appeals affirmed Defendant's first-degree murder conviction, concluding that the circuit court did not err in declining to ask Defendant's proposed voir dire questions. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the circumstances were satisfied for Kazadi to apply to this case. View "Kumar v. State" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals affirmed Petitioner's convictions of perjury and misconduct in office, holding that this Court declines to abrogate the two-witness rule for "oath-against-oath" perjury cases and that there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions.Petitioner, a veteran officer in the Baltimore Police Department, was charged with perjury and misconduct in office based on allegedly false testimony he gave at a criminal trial. The circuit court found Defendant guilty, and the court of special appeals affirmed. Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari, arguing that the lower courts' bases for affirmance were erroneous, and the State filed a cross-petition for certiorari asking the Court to abrogate the two-witness rule prospectively. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the State met its burden of production under the two-witness rule in this case; and (2) the evidence was sufficient to sustain Petitioner's convictions for perjury and misconduct in office. View "O'Sullivan v. State" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the court of special appeals reversing the order of the post-conviction court awarding Petitioner a new trial on all counts and instead remanding the case for a new trial solely on an attempted second-degree murder charge, holding that the court of special appeals did not err.Petitioner was convicted of attempted second-degree murder, first- and second-degree assault, use of a handgun in the commission of a crime of violence, and other charges. Petitioner later petitioned for post-conviction relief, asserting ineffective assistance of counsel. The post-conviction court granted the petition and awarded a new trial on all counts based on the cumulative effect of trial counsel's errors. The court of special appeals remanded for a new trial on the attempted second-degree murder charge only, concluding that the limited cumulative effect theory did not warrant a reversal of all of Petitioner's convictions. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the deficient performance of Petitioner's counsel warranted a new trial on the attempted second-degree murder charge only. View "Wallace v. State" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the court of special appeals affirming Defendant's convictions and sentences for home invasion, first-degree assault and reckless endangerment, holding that the trial judge abused his discretion by denying Defendant's request to postpone sentencing.Following the jury's verdict, Defendant requested a postponement of the trial court's move to sentencing in order to prepare mitigating information for the court's consideration. Defendant specifically requested an order for a long-form presentencing investigation report, indicating that additional time would allow his mother to testify on his behalf. The trial court denied Defendant's request and imposed a sentence in his mother's absence. The court of criminal appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case with directions to vacate Defendant's sentence, holding that, under the circumstances of this case, the trial judge abused his discretion by refusing to postpone Defendant's sentencing process. View "Mainor v. State" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals held that the holding in Lee v. State, 311 Md. 642 (1988), in which the Court held that the predecessor statute to Md. Code Crim. Law (CR) 4-203(a)(1)(I) imposed strict liability for wearing, carrying, or transporting a handgun on or about the person, was still good law and that CR 4-203(a)(1)(I) sets forth a strict liability offense.Defendant was convicted of wearing, carrying, or transporting a handgun on or about the person. Defendant moved for a new trial, arguing that the trial court improperly ignored the mens rea element of wearing, carrying, or transporting a handgun. The court of special appeals affirmed, holding that "knowledge" was not an element of wearing, carrying, or transporting a handgun on or about the person. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that "knowledge" is not an element of the crime charged. View "Lawrence v. State" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the court of special appeals affirming Defendant's convictions, holding that, under article 21 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights, a statement contained in a scientific report is testimonial if a reasonable declarant would have understood the primary purpose for the creation of the report to be to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution.Defendant was indicted on charges of first-, third-, and fourth-degree burglary, theft, and malicious destruction of property. At the scene of the reported burglary, a police officer swabbed the burglar's suspected blood from the window frame and a curtain. Thereafter, Molly Rollo, a forensic scientist, conducted a DNA analysis of the samples and produced a report providing a DNA profile for a male contributor. A subsequent DNA records database search identified Defendant as a possible match. At trial, the court admitted Rollo's report into evidence and allowed a different forensic scientist, Tiffany Keener, to convey the report's results to the jury without requiring that Rollo be available for cross-examination. The Court of Appeals reversed the convictions, holding that the trial court violated Defendant's rights to confrontation and cross-examination under Article 21 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights. View "Leidig v. State" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of first-degree rape and other offenses, holding that the trial court did not violate Defendant's constitutional rights by allowing the technical review of a report analyzing DNA evidence to testify about the results of that analysis without requiring the primary author of the report to be available for cross-examination.In 2008, an unidentified assailant sexually assaulted a nineteen-year-old woman in her apartment. Forensic evidence was collected from the woman's body and from her apartment, and forensic scientists generated a DNA profile from the evidence for an "unknown male #1." Nine years later, the FBI's Combined DNA Index System produced Defendant as a match for "unknown male #1." Defendant was subsequently convicted with several offenses relating to the sexual assault. Thomas Hebert was the primary author of two reports that analyzed and/or compared DNA evidence relevant to this case. The State did not call Hebert as a witness and instead offered the testimony of two other Forensic Services Division analysts in Hebert's stead. The court of special appeals reversed the convictions, concluding that the trial court violated Defendant's constitutional rights to confrontation. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Defendant's constitutional rights were not violated under the circumstances of this case. View "State v. Miller" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals affirmed Defendant's convictions of numerous criminal offenses related to a drunk driving incident that resulted in the death of a cyclist, holding that Defendant's challenge to the jury selection method in this case was unavailing.On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial judge impermissibly excluded numerous groups of people from his jury without making specific findings of bias or other cause, in violation of his right to an impartial jury. The court of special appeals affirmed the convictions. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that there was no indication in the record that any cognizable group was excluded from the jury as a result of the method of jury selection used in this case. View "Kidder v. State" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals dismissed this appeal of the court of special appeals' denial of an application for leave to appeal in a postconviction proceeding, holding that this Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Md. Code Cts. & Jud. Proc. (CJ) 12-202.Petitioner was found guilty of first-degree murder and other crimes. Nearly ten years after Petitioner was sentenced, he filed a petition for postconviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of both trial and appellate counsel. The postconviction court denied the petition. Petitioner filed an application for leave to appeal, which the court of special appeals denied without explanation. Petitioner then petitioned the Court of Appeals for writ of certiorari. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding that CJ 12-202 is not precluded by article IV, section 14A of the Maryland Constitution. View "Mahai v. State" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the court of special appeals affirming Defendant's conviction of attempted first-degree murder and related charges, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in giving the criminal pattern jury instruction on flight.Defendant was prosecuted for shooting Eric Tate, III and immediately fleeing the scene. At trial, Defendant disputed both that he was the shooter and that he was the person who fled the scene. The trial judge provided the jury with the pattern instruction on flight, and the jury convicted Defendant. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in giving the flight instruction. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) a trial judge generally should not give a flight instruction where the sole contested issue at trial is the defendant's identity as the fleeing offender; and (2) because the evidence adduced at trial generated the flight instruction and because Defendant did not make the necessary unequivocal statement to the court narrowing the case solely to his identity as the fleeing assailant, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in giving the flight instruction. View "Wright v. State" on Justia Law