Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Fred Cromartie was convicted of second-degree assault and other offenses following an altercation in a parking lot, which was recorded by surveillance cameras. The State alleged that Cromartie was one of the shooters, and his defense was self-defense. During the trial, the defense invoked Maryland Rule 5-615 to exclude witnesses from the courtroom while others testified. The State designated Detective Courtney Moore, a witness, as its representative, allowing him to remain in the courtroom.The Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County allowed the State's designation over the defense's objection. The jury convicted Cromartie of several charges but acquitted him of others. Cromartie appealed, arguing that the circuit court erred in allowing the State to designate Detective Moore as its representative and that Moore's testimony constituted improper lay opinion identification testimony.The Supreme Court of Maryland reviewed the case. The court did not resolve whether the circuit court erred in permitting the State to designate Detective Moore as its representative because any such error was deemed harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The court found that Moore's testimony was not improperly influenced by other testimony he heard before testifying and that his presence did not improperly bolster the State's case.Regarding the lay opinion testimony, the court concluded that Cromartie did not preserve his argument that Moore's testimony identifying individuals in the video was improper. The court noted that the identity of the individuals was not in dispute and had already been established, including by the defense. Additionally, the defense did not request a continuing objection or object to subsequent similar questions and answers.The Supreme Court of Maryland affirmed the judgment of the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County. View "Cromartie v. State" on Justia Law

Fred Cromartie was convicted of second-degree assault and other offenses following an altercation in a parking lot, which was recorded by surveillance cameras. The State alleged that Cromartie was one of the shooters, and his defense was self-defense. During the trial, the defense invoked Maryland Rule 5-615 to exclude witnesses from the courtroom while others testified. The State designated Detective Courtney Moore, a witness, as its representative, which the court allowed over the defense's objection.The Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County permitted Detective Moore to sit at the State's counsel table during the trial. The jury heard testimony from Jalen Hayes, who identified Cromartie and others in the video, and from Detective Moore, who testified about his investigation and the crime scene. The jury convicted Cromartie of second-degree assault, possessing a firearm after a disqualifying crime, and carrying a loaded handgun, but acquitted him of other charges.The Supreme Court of Maryland reviewed the case to determine if the circuit court erred in allowing the State to designate Detective Moore as its representative and if his testimony constituted improper lay opinion under Rule 5-701. The court did not resolve the first issue, finding any error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, as Detective Moore's testimony was not improperly influenced by other testimony. On the second issue, the court found that Cromartie did not preserve his objection to Detective Moore's identification testimony and that any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The court affirmed the Circuit Court's judgment. View "Cromartie v. State" on Justia Law

In 1992, Abras Sandy Q. Morrison was convicted in the Circuit Court for Carroll County of first-degree murder, kidnapping, robbery, and related conspiracy charges. He was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for first-degree murder, with additional concurrent sentences for the other charges. The prosecutor had filed a notice of intent to seek a life without parole sentence more than thirty days before the trial. The court considered the facts, including Morrison's detailed confession and the pre-sentence report, before imposing the sentence.Morrison's convictions were affirmed by the Appellate Court of Maryland in 1993. He later filed two petitions for postconviction relief, which were denied by the circuit court in 1999. His application for leave to appeal was also denied. In 2023, Morrison filed a pro se petition for postconviction DNA testing under CP § 8-201, seeking to test a hair and a blood-stained towel, claiming the results could produce mitigating evidence regarding his sentence. The circuit court denied the petition without a hearing, and Morrison appealed.The Supreme Court of Maryland reviewed the case and affirmed the circuit court's decision. The court held that there was no reasonable probability that DNA testing of the hair would produce exculpatory or mitigating evidence relevant to Morrison's claim of wrongful sentencing. The court noted that Morrison's detailed confession and other evidence established his participation in the crime, and DNA testing would not negate his culpability. The court concluded that the circuit court did not err in denying the petition for DNA testing. View "Morrison v. State" on Justia Law

A woman was charged with murder and child abuse resulting in the death of her newborn after delivering the baby at home without her husband's knowledge. She claimed the baby was stillborn, while the State argued the baby died of asphyxiation at her hands. The woman had conducted internet searches about terminating her pregnancy months before the delivery and did not seek prenatal care.A jury in the Circuit Court for Howard County convicted the woman of second-degree murder and child abuse resulting in death, sentencing her to 30 years for murder and a concurrent 20 years for child abuse. The Appellate Court of Maryland affirmed the conviction, finding the evidence of internet searches and lack of prenatal care relevant to her intent and motive.The Supreme Court of Maryland reviewed the case to determine the relevance and prejudicial impact of the internet searches and lack of prenatal care. The Court held that the internet searches were irrelevant to show intent to kill or harm a newborn, as contemplating a legal abortion does not support an inference of intent to harm a person. Similarly, the Court found that the decision to forgo prenatal care was not probative of intent to harm a live child, as women forgo prenatal care for various reasons unrelated to criminal intent.The Court reversed the judgment of the Appellate Court and remanded the case to the circuit court for a new trial, emphasizing the need to carefully weigh the probative value against the potential prejudicial effects of such evidence. View "Akers v. State" on Justia Law

The case involves Isiah Hollins, who was convicted of second-degree assault following an altercation with Alexander Alvarenga at a McDonald's restaurant in Rockville, Maryland. On November 16, 2021, Hollins, a supervisor, and Alvarenga, an employee, engaged in a fight during which Hollins stabbed Alvarenga multiple times with a knife. Hollins was charged with attempted first-degree murder and related assault charges but argued self-defense, claiming Alvarenga was the initial aggressor due to his violent character.In the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Hollins sought to introduce evidence of Alvarenga's propensity for violence, including prior assault convictions and past fights, to support his self-defense claim. The trial court denied Hollins's request to cross-examine Alvarenga about a recent unrelated incident and refused to give a non-pattern jury instruction regarding Alvarenga's violent character. The jury acquitted Hollins of attempted first-degree murder and first-degree assault but convicted him of second-degree assault. Hollins was sentenced to ten years in prison, with two years suspended, and five years of probation.Hollins appealed to the Appellate Court of Maryland, which affirmed his conviction. The appellate court agreed that the trial court erred in refusing the jury instruction solely because it was not a pattern instruction but concluded that the evidence did not support the instruction. Hollins then petitioned for a writ of certiorari.The Supreme Court of Maryland reviewed the case and held that the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to consider the requested jury instruction on the basis that it was not a pattern instruction. The court found that there was "some evidence" that Alvarenga had a character trait for violence, which could allow the jury to infer that he was the initial aggressor. The Supreme Court of Maryland reversed the judgment of the Appellate Court and remanded the case for a new trial. View "Hollins v. State" on Justia Law

In 2000, Adnan Syed was convicted of the murder of Hae Min Lee and sentenced to life in prison plus 30 years. In 2022, the State’s Attorney for Baltimore City moved to vacate Syed’s conviction, citing new evidence and alleged Brady violations. Young Lee, the victim’s brother, was given less than one business day’s notice of the vacatur hearing, which he attended remotely. The court granted the motion to vacate and ordered the State to either retry Syed or enter a nolle prosequi (nol pros) within 30 days. The State later entered a nol pros, effectively dismissing the charges against Syed.Young Lee appealed the vacatur order, arguing that his rights as a victim’s representative were violated due to insufficient notice and the inability to attend the hearing in person. The Appellate Court of Maryland vacated the circuit court’s order, reinstated Syed’s convictions, and remanded for a new hearing, holding that the entry of the nol pros did not moot Lee’s appeal and that Lee had the right to reasonable notice and to attend the hearing in person.The Supreme Court of Maryland affirmed the Appellate Court’s decision, holding that the entry of the nol pros did not moot Lee’s appeal. The Court concluded that a victim has the right to be heard at a vacatur hearing under CP § 11-403, which applies to hearings where the alteration of a sentence is considered. The Court also held that Lee’s rights were violated due to insufficient notice and the inability to attend the hearing in person. The case was remanded to the Circuit Court for Baltimore City for further proceedings, starting from the point immediately after the State’s Attorney filed the motion to vacate. View "Syed v. Lee" on Justia Law

In 2000, Adnan Syed was convicted of the murder of Hae Min Lee and sentenced to life in prison plus 30 years. In 2022, the State’s Attorney for Baltimore City moved to vacate Syed’s conviction, citing new evidence and alleged Brady violations. Young Lee, the victim’s brother, was given less than one business day’s notice of the vacatur hearing, which he attended remotely. The court granted the motion to vacate and ordered the State to either retry Syed or enter a nolle prosequi (nol pros) within 30 days. The State later entered a nol pros, effectively dismissing the charges against Syed.Young Lee appealed the vacatur order, arguing that his rights as a victim’s representative were violated due to insufficient notice and the inability to attend the hearing in person. The Appellate Court of Maryland vacated the circuit court’s order, reinstated Syed’s convictions, and remanded for a new hearing, holding that the nol pros did not moot Lee’s appeal and that Lee had the right to reasonable notice and to attend the hearing in person.The Supreme Court of Maryland affirmed the Appellate Court’s decision, holding that the entry of the nol pros did not moot Lee’s appeal. The court ruled that a victim has the right to be heard at a vacatur hearing under CP § 11-403, which includes hearings where the alteration of a sentence is considered. The court also held that Lee’s rights were violated due to insufficient notice and the inability to attend the hearing in person. The case was remanded to the Circuit Court for Baltimore City for further proceedings, starting from the point immediately after the State’s Attorney filed the motion to vacate. View "Syed v. Lee" on Justia Law

In 2002, Steven Anthony Thomas was indicted for three hotel robberies in Charles County, Maryland. He pleaded guilty to two counts of armed robbery and one count of second-degree burglary, resulting in a total sentence of 40 years. In 2014, his sentence for the first armed robbery was reduced to 12.5 years, triggering a new five-year period for filing a motion to modify his sentence under Maryland Rule 4-345(e). Thomas filed a timely motion in 2015, which the court held in abeyance. He supplemented his motion multiple times, but the court took no action before the five-year period expired in December 2019.The Circuit Court for Charles County eventually held a hearing in 2021 and concluded it lacked authority to revise the sentence after the five-year period. The Appellate Court of Maryland reversed, relying on Schlick v. State, which held that the circuit court retained fundamental jurisdiction over a timely-filed motion even after the five-year period expired.The Supreme Court of Maryland reviewed the case and overruled Schlick v. State. The court held that under Rule 4-345(e), a circuit court does not have jurisdiction to revise a sentence more than five years after its imposition. The court emphasized that the rule's language is unambiguous and imposes a strict temporal limit. The court also clarified that deferring a motion to reduce a sentence for the full five-year period is equivalent to denying it within that period. Consequently, the Supreme Court of Maryland reversed the Appellate Court's decision, affirming that the circuit court lacked authority to modify Thomas's sentence after the five-year deadline. View "State v. Thomas" on Justia Law

In 1999, Mark McCloy was convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(1) for tampering with a potential witness in an EEOC proceeding. In 2021, he applied to purchase a handgun in Maryland, stating he had no disqualifying convictions. The Maryland State Police (MSP) disapproved his application, determining his federal conviction was equivalent to a disqualifying Maryland crime under CR § 9-305.McCloy appealed the MSP's decision to the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH). The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(1) was not equivalent to CR § 9-305 but sua sponte determined it was comparable to CR § 9-306, affirming the MSP's disapproval. McCloy sought judicial review in the Circuit Court for Queen Anne’s County, which affirmed the ALJ’s decision but on the grounds that CR § 9-305 was the appropriate equivalent Maryland crime.The Appellate Court of Maryland affirmed the circuit court’s decision, holding that the relevant Maryland law for determining equivalency is the law in effect at the time of the application, not the conviction. The court used a two-step approach to determine equivalency, comparing the elements of the statutes and considering whether a reasonable mind could conclude the statutes prohibit similar conduct.The Supreme Court of Maryland reversed the Appellate Court’s decision. It held that the relevant Maryland law for determining whether an out-of-State crime is disqualifying is the law in effect when the application is submitted. The court adopted a modified categorical approach, comparing the elements of the out-of-State crime with the Maryland crime. If the elements are broader, the MSP must have conclusive evidence of the acts forming the basis of the conviction to determine if those acts would support a conviction under a disqualifying Maryland crime. The court concluded that McCloy’s federal conviction was not equivalent to a disqualifying Maryland crime and remanded the case with instructions to reverse the MSP’s disapproval of McCloy’s firearm application. View "In the Matter of McCloy" on Justia Law

The case involves Thomas Dwayne Cook, who was convicted of first-degree assault and reckless endangerment for attacking Lieutenant Aubrey Fletcher while serving a prison sentence. Cook sought post-conviction DNA testing of a shirt he wore during the incident, claiming that the DNA results could support his self-defense claim and challenge the severity of the victim's injuries.The Circuit Court for Somerset County denied Cook's petition for DNA testing without a hearing, stating that there was overwhelming evidence of Cook's guilt and that DNA testing would not produce exculpatory or mitigating evidence. Cook appealed this decision, arguing that the court applied the wrong standard and that he should have been allowed to respond to the State's answer to his petition.The Supreme Court of Maryland reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that Cook did not demonstrate a reasonable probability that DNA testing would produce exculpatory or mitigating evidence. The court found that even if the DNA testing showed the blood on Cook's shirt was his own, it would not support his self-defense claim or negate the severity of the victim's injuries. The court also held that the Circuit Court did not err in denying the petition without waiting for Cook's response to the State's answer, as the rules do not require the court to wait for such a response before ruling.In conclusion, the Supreme Court of Maryland affirmed the Circuit Court's denial of Cook's petition for post-conviction DNA testing, finding no reasonable probability that the testing would produce exculpatory or mitigating evidence. View "Cook v. State" on Justia Law