Maryland Courts

SCHEDULE OF ORAL ARGUMENTS

September Term, 2013

 

Thursday, October 3, 2013:

Bar Admissions

No. 13  James Kulbicki v. State of Maryland

Issues - Criminal Law - 1) Does a conviction obtained through the use of scientific evidence that is later demonstrated to be unreliable, misleading, and inadmissible violate a defendant's guarantee of due process? 2) Does the use of perjured expert testimony by a State expert violate a defendant's due process rights when the perjured testimony involves the expert's qualifications and background? 3) Does the failure of defense counsel to investigate or challenge the State's scientific evidence and failure to object to the scope of the State's closing arguments constitute ineffective assistance of counsel? 4) Did CSA err in stating that the State is chargeable with the "knowing use of perjured testimony" where the falsity is unknown at the time of the testimony?

Attorney for Petitioner: Edwin J. Kilpela, Jr.
Attorney for Respondent: Mary Anne Ince

No. 12  State Center, LLC, et al. v. Lexington Charles Limited Partnership, et al.

Issues - State Government - 1) Did the trial court err in concluding that the State Center Project violates state procurement law on the grounds that the project is not a simple disposition of land but "a complex, creative way to develop" land owed by the State that should have been subject to the requirement of competitive sealed proposals? 2) Does the Circuit Court for Baltimore City lack jurisdiction to address appellee's claim that the project violates state procurement law because such claims fall within the primary or exclusive jurisdiction of the MD State Board of Contract Appeals? 3) Do appellees lack standing, under the taxpayer standing theory, to challenge the project because they failed to allege facts to support either their claim of illegal, ultra vires action or their contention that they will suffer special damage if the project proceeds? 4) Did the trial court err in declining to review the belated designation of the project as a Transit-Oriented Development, a designation which permitted the project to be prioritized and receive substantial site-selection and other benefits?

Attorneys for Appellant: Julia Doyle Bernhardt and Michael J. Edney
Attorney for Appellee: Michael D. Berman

No. 15  In Re: Victoria C.

Issues - Juvenile Law-CINA - 1) Should the best interest standard for treatment of juveniles adjudicated to be CINA be adhered to by juvenile courts regardless of whether that CINA has achieved the age of majority? 2) Should the analytical framework for considering adult visitation of children developed in In re: Tamara R., 136 Md.App. 236 (2000), and Koshko v. Haining, 398 Md. 404 (2007), be amended so that adult siblings seeking visitation have a different standard? 3) Did CSA err in applying a de novo rather than abuse of discretion or clearly erroneous standard when reviewing the decision of the juvenile court?

Attorney for Petitioner: Mitchell Y. Mirviss
Attorney for Respondent: Samantha Z. Smith

No. 20  Melvin D. Williams v. State of Maryland

Issues - Criminal Law - 1) Where Petitioner states unequivocally and conspicuously his desire to discharge his attorney in a letter filed with the trial court, is the court required to comply with the requirements of MD Rule 4-215(e), without the need for Petitioner to repeat the request in open court? 2) Did CSA misinterpret MD Crim. Law Art. § 9-408 (2002, 2011 Cum. Supp.) in upholding Petitioner's conviction for resisting arrest where the force allegedly used in resisting arrest was "employed against someone other than the police officer who is attempting to effectuate the arrest"?

Attorney for Petitioner: Jeffrey M. Ross
Attorney for Respondent: Ryan R. Dietrich

 

Friday, October 4, 2013:

No. 16  Brittany Ellis v. Housing Authority of Baltimore City

Issues - Torts - 1) Did the trial court err in granting Appellee's motion for summary judgment on the grounds that Appellant failed to comply with the notice requirement of Cts. & Jud. Proc §5-304? 2) Did the trial court abuse its discretion in declining to grant Appellant's motion to waive the notice requirement for good cause? 3) Is the notice requirement, as applied to an injured minor's claim for lead poisoning against a housing authority, an unreasonable restriction upon a traditional remedy and to the minor's access to the courts in violation of Art. 19 of the MD Declaration of Rights?

Attorney for Appellant: Suzanne C. Shapiro
Attorneys for Appellee: J. Marks Moore III and Frank J. Mastro

No. 17  Tyairra Johnson v. Housing Authority of Baltimore City

Issues - Torts - 1) Did the trial court err in granting Appellee's motion for summary judgment on the grounds that Appellant failed to comply with the notice requirement of Cts. & Jud. Proc §5-304? 2) Did the trial court abuse its discretion in declining to grant Appellant's motion to waive the notice requirement for good cause? 3) Is the notice requirement, as applied to an injured minor's claim for lead poisoning against a housing authority, an unreasonable restriction upon a traditional remedy and to the minor's access to the courts in violation of Art. 19 of the MD Declaration of Rights?

Attorney for Appellant: Suzanne C. Shapiro
Attorneys for Appellee: J. Marks Moore III and Frank J. Mastro

No. 18  Housing Authority of Baltimore City v. Amafica K. Woodland

Issues - Torts - 1) Did the trial court err as a matter of law in finding substantial compliance with the Local Government Tort Claims Act ("LGTCA")? 2) Did the trial court abuse its discretion in finding good cause to excuse compliance with the notice requirement of the LGTCA? 3) Did the trial court err by not permitting Appellant to present evidence that it acted reasonably by complying with the applicable requirements of the Reduction of Lead Risk in Housing Act in effect at the time of the occurrence? 4) Did the trial court err by admitting hearsay evidence of lead paint at the property, which evidence lacked circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness?

Attorneys for Appellant: J. Marks Moore III and Frank J. Mastro
Attorney for Appellee: Scott E. Nevin

 

Monday, October 7, 2013:

AG No. 39 (2012 Term)  Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. David Eugene Bocchino

Attorney for Petitioner: JaCina N. Stanton
Attorney for Respondent: David Eugene Bocchino

No. 14  Terry Wayne Hammonds v. State of Maryland

Issues - Criminal Law - 1) Can an individual be found a month after the fact to have been in direct contempt of court for tearing up court documents in the back of the courtroom after the court has moved on to another matter and where the court made no comment or finding of contempt at the time and there is no evidence that the proceedings were interrupted by the behavior? 2) Can MD Crim. Law Art. §9-303(a)'s proscription against threatening to harm a reporting witness be violated without that threat of retaliation being made directly to the witness or with the intent that the threat be conveyed to the witness? 3) Did the trial court improperly revoke Petitioner's probation for acts and comments which the court deemed to constitute direct contempt and a violation of MD Crim. Law. Art.§9-303(a)?

Attorney for Petitioner: Claudia A. Cortese
Attorney for Respondent: Michelle W. Cole

No. 9  Taquez Price v. State of Maryland

Issues - Criminal Law - 1) Should petitioner's inculpatory statement at a post-indictment initial appearance, made in direct response to the trial court's question about appropriate bond, have been suppressed? 2) Did the trial court violate Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981), by continuing to conduct a hearing and questioning petitioner after petitioner stated he had an attorney and provided his attorney's name to the court? 3) Does a defendant have a statutory and Sixth Amendment right to counsel at a post-indictment initial appearance and bond review? 4) Did CSA err in ruling that petitioner's statutory and Sixth Amendment right to counsel arguments were waived? 5) Was petitioner's direct response to the trial court's question about bond too ambiguous and equivocal to be admissible as a matter of MD evidentiary law? 6) Was petitioner's Edwards v. Arizona argument regarding the bail review hearing properly preserved for appellate review?

Attorney for Petitioner: Ben Miller
Attorney for Respondent: Carrie J. Williams

 

Tuesday, October 8, 2013:

No. 11  Emmanuel Ford Robinson v. State of Maryland

Issues - Criminal Law - 1) Where a co-defendant who entered a plea of guilty testified as a defense witness at petitioner's trial, did the trial court err in permitting the State, in the guise of cross-examination, to read into the record a statement of facts proffered at the co-defendant's guilty plea hearing but never adopted by the co-defendant? 2) Did the trial court abuse its discretion in preemptively giving the jury a "scientific or investigative techniques" instruction where defense counsel merely stated in opening statement that the lack of physical evidence demonstrated the absence of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and where defense counsel never mischaracterized the law?

Attorney for Petitioner: Michael T. Torres
Attorney for Respondent: Cathleen C. Brockmeyer

No. 21  American Bank Holdings, Inc. v. Brian Kavanagh, et al.

Issues - Civil Procedure - Does the denial of a motion to compel arbitration constitute an appealable final judgment under MD law?

Attorney for Petitioner: David S. Panzer
Attorney for Respondent: Martin E. Wolf

No. 19   Clara A. Henriquez Aleman v. State of Maryland

Issues - Transportation Law - 1) Does the dangling of an item or items from the inside rearview mirror constitute reasonable ground for a traffic stop on the grounds of operating a motor vehicle with an obstructed view? 2) Is MD Transp. Art. § 21-1104(c)(1) (2012) without clear guidance to the motoring public and law enforcement so as to be unconstitutionally vague?

Attorney for Petitioner: Richard C. Bittner
Attorney for Respondent: Jeremy M. McCoy

 

On the day of argument, counsel are instructed to register in the Clerk’s Office no later than 9:30 a.m. unless otherwise notified.

After October 8, 2013 the Court will recess until October 31, 2013.

 

BESSIE M. DECKER

CLERK