Maryland Courts

Court of Appeals Webcast Archive

 

 

December 2016 Schedule
Date Docket # Title
12-01-2016 No. 37
Docket Nos. 37, 39, and 46 were heard together
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Jermaul Rondell Robinson v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) When an officer detects an “overwhelming smell” of “fresh marijuana” coming from a car, does the officer have probable cause to search the car in light of the fact that possession of less than ten grams of marijuana is now a “civil offense” punishable only by a fine? 2) Did the trial court err when it denied Petitioner’s motion to suppress?
12-01-2016 No. 39
(See above)
Dexter Williams v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) When an officer smells the odor of marijuana from the interior of a car and when the driver and sole occupant admits that he has an unspecified amount of marijuana in the car, does the officer have probable cause to search the car in light of the fact that possession of less than ten grams of marijuana is now a “civil offense” punishable only by a fine? 2) Did the trial court err when it denied Petitioner’s motion to suppress?
12-01-2016 No. 46
(See above)
Vernon Harvey Spriggs, III v. State of Maryland

Issues – Public Utilities – 1) Did the Public Service Commission (“PSC”) act outside of its statutory authority by imposing taxes, or mandatory payments, which it was not empowered to enact? 2) Did PSC violate Petitioner’s right to due process by failing to make sufficient findings of fact on the record regarding the economic effects of the Generating Station? 3) Were PSC’s findings regarding the economic effects of the Generating Station under Md. Code Public Utilities § 7-207(e)(2)(ii) supported by substantial evidence in the record?
12-02-2016 No. 31 URS Corporation, et al. v. Fort Myer Construction Corporation

Issues – Courts and Judicial Proceedings – 1) Did CSA err in deciding Respondent’s appeal when there is no final judgment in the case? 2) Did CSA err in holding that the trial judge’s finding that Respondent had maintained its case without substantial justification was clearly erroneous? 3) Did CSA err in holding that the trial judge’s denial of Respondent’s amended motion for reconsideration was an abuse of discretion?
12-02-2016 No. 38

Michael M. Johnson v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Procedure – 1) Did the trial court’s grant of Petitioner’s Motion for Judgment of Acquittal (“MJOA”) on the express basis of legally insufficient evidence preclude further proceedings under the Md. common law of double jeopardy and/or the Federal Constitutional prohibition upon double jeopardy? 2) Was the trial court’s grant of the MJOA procedurally proper because the trial court has the authority to reconsider and retract the grant of a mistrial? 3) Was the trial court’s grant of the MJOA legally proper because the court retained fundamental jurisdiction to render the ruling? 4) Even assuming arguendo that the grant of the MJOA was procedurally flawed, under the Md. common law of double jeopardy was an acquittal upon the express basis of legally insufficient evidence nevertheless final and binding?



12-02-2016 No. 40 State of Maryland v. Jeffrey D. Ebb, Sr.

Issue – Criminal Law – Did the trial court properly deny a Petition for Writ of Actual Innocence in which the Petitioner neither (a) claimed innocence, or (b) presented any meaningful “new” evidence?
12-05-2016 No. 34 Jenny J. Copsey, Individually, and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Lance D. Copsey, Deceased et al. v. John S. Park, et al.

Issues – Torts – 1) Did the trial court err in admitting evidence of the negligence of non-party, subsequent treating physicians, including evidence that they were once defendants in the instant suit? 2) Did the trial court err in instructing the jury on superseding cause when the negligence of all the treating physicians amounted to one indivisible injury, that being death?
12-05-2016 No. 36

Rahul Gupta v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Procedure – 1) When a judge violates Md. Rule 4-326(d) by communicating an ex parte answer to a juror’s question that “pertains to the action”, without disclosing it to the defendant or any lawyer, can the presumption of prejudice be overcome by adding a new standard of review claiming the judge’s ex parte answer was not “substantive” enough? 2) Did the trial court err by not granting pre-trial suppression of Petitioner’s custodial interrogation statement after finding he communicated repeated demands for a lawyer to police officers while he was locked up in a cell just before being interrogated?

12-05-2016 No. 41

Maryland Insurance Administration v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Compnay et al.


Issues – Insurance Law – 1) Does the exception in § 19-505(c)(1)(ii) of the Insurance Article permit an insurance company to exclude coverage under a motor vehicle policy that includes personal injury protection for an accident involving a taxicab owned by the insured and for which the owner was unable to obtain personal injury protection coverage? 2) Did the Md. Insurance Commissioner correctly determine that the insured was entitled to the benefit of his motor vehicle policy’s personal injury protection coverage for injuries sustained while driving his taxicab, for which he carried the insurance coverage required under the Transportation Article?

12-06-2016 No. 43

The Board of Liquor License Commissioners for Baltimore City v. Steven Kougl et al.

Issue – Alcoholic Beverages – Did the Liquor Board correctly interpret its rules to impose upon licensees strict liability for sexual display, performance, or illegal activity conducted on licensed premises, where the pertinent portions of the rules contain no language limiting a licensee’s responsibility to situations where the licensee has actual or constructive knowledge of the offending conduct?

12-06-2016 No. 35

Daniel S. Yuan v. Johns Hopkins University

Issues – Labor & Employment – 1) Did CSA err in precluding Md. employees from bringing wrongful termination claims based on retaliation for reporting research misconduct, by refusing to recognize the federal law prohibiting research misconduct as a public policy basis, contrary to this Court’s recognition of wrongful termination claims? 2) Did CSA err in precluding Md. employees from bringing conversion claims based on the employer’s conversion of the employee’s personal research materials, by improperly drawing inferences in favor of Respondent when it interpreted Respondent’s research materials policy?

12-06-2016 No. 30 Bainbridge St. Elmo Bethesda Apartments, LLC v. White Flint Express Realty Group Limited Partnership, LLLP

Issue – Contract Law – Did CSA undermine Nova Research v. Penske Truck Leasing Co., 405 Md. 435 (2008), concerning the limited circumstances under which a contractual indemnity provision can be read as a first-party fee shifting provision overriding the American Rule that each party bears its own attorneys’ fees?
November 2016 Schedule
Date Docket # Title
11-07-2016 No. 60 Voters Organized for the Integrity of City Elections (V.O.I.C.E.) et al. v. Baltimore City Elections Board et al.

Election appeal.
11-07-2016 No. 28 State of Maryland et al. v. Jamie Falcon et al.

Issues – Constitutional Law – 1) Did the trial court err in enjoining portions of Chapter 35 of the 2016 Laws of Md. that alter the composition of the Nominating Commission where the law made permanent changes to the composition of the Commission to make it locally appointed? 2) Did the trial court err in treating members of the Nominating Commission as “officers” within the meaning of Article II, § 15 where they do not exercise any portion of the sovereign power of the State?
11-07-2016 No. 26 Accokeek, Mattawoman, Piscataway Creeks Communities Council, Inc. v. The Public Service Commission of Maryland, et al.

Issues – Public Utilities – 1) Did the Public Service Commission (“PSC”) act outside of its statutory authority by imposing taxes, or mandatory payments, which it was not empowered to enact? 2) Did PSC violate Petitioner’s right to due process by failing to make sufficient findings of fact on the record regarding the economic effects of the Generating Station? 3) Were PSC’s findings regarding the economic effects of the Generating Station under Md. Code Public Utilities § 7-207(e)(2)(ii) supported by substantial evidence in the record?
11-07-2016 No. 22 Dameron Smallwood v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Procedure – 1) Where a psychiatrist initially determined that Petitioner was criminally responsible for acts leading to criminal charges and that opinion led Petitioner to withdraw a plea of not criminally responsible (“NCR”) and proceed to trial on an agreed statement of facts and where, approximately 25 years later, the same psychiatrist concluded that Petitioner was in fact NCR at the time he committed the acts leading to the criminal charges, is the psychiatrist’s revised opinion about criminal responsibility newly discovered evidence that creates a substantial or significant possibility that the result may have been different such that Petitioner is entitled to relief under Criminal Procedure Article § 8-301? 2) Does § 8-301, which governs petitions for writs of actual innocence, contemplate relief for an individual who was convicted of a crime but who later presents newly discovered evidence that he was not criminally responsible at the time of the crime? 3) May a person who was convicted after a trial on an agreed statement of facts obtain relief under § 8-301? 4) Does an expert’s opinion that Petitioner was NCR, offered many years after the same expert opined that the petitioner was criminally responsible constitute “newly discovered evidence” under § 8-301? 5) Does the revised expert opinion that Petitioner was not criminally responsible at the time of the crime create a substantial or significant possibility that the result in this case may have been different?
11-04-2016 AG No. 68 (2015 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Jerome Johnson

11-04-2016 No. 27 In Re: Cody H.

Issues – Criminal Procedure – 1) Does MD’s restitution statute allowing for recovery of lost earnings “as a direct result of the crime” permit the court to order restitution for lost earnings to be earned in the future and for lost earnings for a randomly selected period of time? 2) Did CSA err in finding that competent evidence was introduced to support the claim for eight months of lost wages?
11-04-2016 No. 23 Kor-Ko Ltd. and John E. Rothamel v. Maryland Department of the Environment

Issues – Environmental Law – 1) Did Maryland Department of the Environment (“MDE”) err by interpreting the definition of “premises” in COMAR § 26.11.15.06 to include the entire commercial park rather than one tenant in the multi-tenant commercial park? 2) Did MDE err by concluding that its “air toxics regulations do not apply” anywhere within the entire commercial park? 3) Did MDE err by not evaluating whether emissions of toxic air pollutants will unreasonably endanger the health of the neighboring tenant in the commercial park?
11-04-2016 Misc. No. 5 In the Matter of the Honorable Pamela J. White

11-03-2016 Bar Admissions

11-03-2016 AG No. 82 (2015 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Willie James Mahone

11-03-2016 AG. No. 11 (2014 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Philip James Sweitzer

11-03-2016 No. 24 Ruben Arnez Collinz v. State of Maryland

Issue – Criminal Law –Did the trial court’s method of conducting voir dire fail to reasonably ensure that the court received truthful and accurate responses to its questions, thus constituting an abuse of discretion and violating Petitioner’s right to a fair and impartial jury?
11-03-2016 No. 25 Frederick Classical Charter School, Inc. v. Frederick County Board of Education

Issues – Education – 1) Did the State Board err in finding that Petitioner contractually agreed to forego funding proportionate to the Local Board’s transportation spending because its students would not necessarily receive transportation from the school? 2) Did the State Board err by deferring to the Local Board’s interpretation of the contract and application of state law and by misstating its own precedent?
October 2016 Schedule
Date Docket # Title
10-18-2016 No. 50 Linda H. Lamone, et al. v. Ian Schlakman, et al.

Issues – Election Law – Did the trial court err in entering an ex parte temporary restraining order that requires the Appellants to remove the name of a qualified candidate from the ballot in Baltimore City Councilmanic District No. 12 for the 2016 General Election?
10-13-2016 AG No. 47 (2015 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Dalton Francis Phillips

10-13-2016 No. 18 National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA v. The Fund For Animals, Inc.

Issues – Insurance Law – 1) Did CSA err in holding that the actual prejudice standard in Insurance Art. § 19-110 requires an insurer to prove that, had it received timely notice, the outcome would have been different? 2) Did CSA exceed its authority by instructing the trial court on remand to permit and grant a belated motion for judgment, when such a motion was never filed at the time of trial? 3) Did Petitioner waive the affirmative defense of collateral estoppel by failing to plead that defense in its answer or mention it during discovery? 4) Does collateral estoppel apply to the findings made in the Endangered Species Act case?
10-13-2016 No. 13 Sheila M. Breck v. Maryland State Police

Issue – Public Safety – Did CSA err in holding that Extra-Duty Secondary Employment, as that term is used by the Maryland State Police, is not Secondary Employment within the meaning of Public Safety § 3-103(b)?
10-13-2016 No. 20 Gary Alan Glass v. Anne Arundel County, Maryland, et al.

Issues – State Government – 1) Are the trial courts precluded from making any finding that material sought by a person about himself may be severed from an internal affairs file pertaining to a specific, identified law enforcement officer under the Public Information Act? 2) Does the custodian of records for a governmental unit have any responsibility under the Public Information Act to disclose computerized records created and used in the work of the unit, but stored outside the unit, when the governmental unit has the right and practical ability to retrieve the records on demand? 3) Having determined that the custodians knowingly and willfully failed to conduct a legally adequate search in locations where responsive material is likely to be found, was it error for the trial court to decline to order a remedial search in those locations?
10-13-2016 No. 64 (2015 T.) Terrance J. Brown v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Pursuant to the “supplemental rule of interpretation,” where a motions court makes a legal determination without making factual findings, must an appellate court fill in the fact-finding gaps by giving little or no weight to the losing party’s evidence, discrediting the losing party’s witnesses, and resolving any ambiguities and drawing all inferences in favor of the prevailing party? 2) In reversing a suppression ruling, may an appellate court rely on a fact on which conflicting evidence was presented below or must the court accept the version of facts most favorable to the prevailing party? 3) What effect does a motions judge’s failure to make factual findings to support its legal conclusion have on the parameters of the appellate court’s review where conflicting versions of events necessitating factual findings were not presented at the motions hearing? 4) Did CSA err in reversing the motions court’s grant of Petitioner’s suppression motion?
10-11-2016 AG No. 15 (2015 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Richard Allen Moore, II.

10-11-2016 AG No. 52 (2015 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Susan Myra Geller Kirwan

10-11-2016 No. 12 Afshin Attar, et al. v. DMS Tollgate, LLC, et al.

Issues – Zoning and Planning – 1) Does Maryland’s special exception jurisprudence require the Baltimore Co. Board of Appeals to define the boundaries of the neighborhood of the proposed special exception before approving that special exception? If so, did the Board of Appeals’ opinion satisfied Maryland’s minimum requirements for articulating the facts found regarding the neighborhood’s boundaries? 2) Did CSA err in holding that the Applicant met its burden of proof, as articulated by the concurring opinion in People’s Counsel for Baltimore County v. Loyola College in Maryland, 406 Md. 54 (2008)?
10-11-2016 No. 19 Katherine Seley-Radtke v. Ramachandra S. Hosmane

Issue – Torts – In a defamation case brought by a private individual, does the heightened standard for overcoming a conditional privilege, as recognized in Jacron Sales Co., Inc. v. Sindorf, 276 Md. 580 (1976), impose a burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence?
10-07-2016 AG Nos. 9 & 25 (2015 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Mark Howard Allenbaugh
10-07-2016 No. 17 Albert F. Oliveira, et al. v. Jay Sugarman, et al.

Issues – Corporations & Associations – 1) Is a board of directors entitled to the presumption of the business judgment rule contained in Md. Code Ann, Corps. & Ass’ns § 2-405.1 when responding to a shareholder demand without presenting evidence that the board acted independently, in good faith, and was reasonably informed as required by Boland v. Boland, 423 Md. 296, 31 A.3d 529 (2011)? 2) May shareholders of a Md. corporation bring direct claims against the board of directors for misrepresentations made in a proxy statement soliciting shareholder votes and for breaches of a shareholder-approved incentive stock plan?
10-07-2016 No. 15 Keisha Ann Hartman v. State of Maryland

Issue – Criminal Law – Where a defendant enters into a non-binding plea agreement in the District Court in which the State agreed to recommend no incarceration, and subsequently notes a de novo appeal from the final judgment of the District Court, does the State remain obligated to make that sentencing recommendation in the Circuit Court if the defendant pleads guilty?
10-07-2016 No. 21 Laura Lynn Hughes v. Stephen Moyer, Secretary of Public Safety and Correctional Services

Issues – State Personnel & Pensions – 1) Did the trial court err in failing to consider the notice requirements imposed on the State by Md. Code. Ann, State Pers. & Pens. § 11-106(a)(5)? 2) Did the trial court err in failing to consider the minimum level of due process due to Petitioner prior to the State’s deprivation of a property right?
10-06-2016 Bar Admissions

10-06-2016 AG No. 7 Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Sandy F. Thomas-Bellamy

10-06-2016 No. 16 Eastern Shore Title Company v. Steven J. Ochse, et al.

Issues – Civil Procedure – 1) May a party recover their attorney’s fees for the exact same matter more than one time as “damages”, even in separate cases? 2) Did the trial court and CSA err in the legal standard used to determine the correct amount of the damages award pursuant to the collateral litigation rule for legal expenses incurred? 3) Does the collateral source rule apply to an award of damages for the breach of two separate contracts involving different parties under different circumstances in different courts where separate consideration was paid for each contract?
10-06-2016 No. 14 Balfour Beatty Infrastructure, Inc. v. Rummel Klepper & Kahl, LLP

Issues – Torts – 1) Did CSA err by applying the economic loss doctrine to a limited class of professionals – designers in government contracts – to shield an engineer from liability to a contractor when the engineer knows that its services will be relied upon to the contractor’s detriment if the engineer’s services are negligently performed? 2) Does the economic loss doctrine bar a government contractor’s action under Restatement of Torts (Second) § 552 against an engineer who negligently supplied information when all other elements are met and when other professional providers of information are not so protected? 3) Does the economic loss doctrine bar a government contractor’s action for negligent misrepresentation against an engineer when the engineer: (a) intended the contractor to rely upon the representations; (b) knew that the contractor would rely upon the design; and (c) knew that the contractor would be harmed if the design was negligently performed?
10-06-2016 No. 7 Richmond D. Phillips v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Under the Frye-Reed standard what is “generally accepted as reliable” in analyzing and interpreting complex mixtures of low template “touch” DNA? 2) In this case, was the Prince George’s County Crime Lab’s methodology “generally accepted as reliable” in the relevant scientific field? 3) Did CSA improperly deviate from Frye-Reed by reaching a conclusion without considering evidence from the relevant scientific community, other than the two opinions expressed at a pretrial hearing? 4) Did CSA err in holding that compliance with § 10-915 of the Courts & Judicial Proceedings Article required certification of meeting a non-existent standard neither party advocated?
September 2016 Schedule
Date Docket # Title
09-09-2016 No. 6 William Todd Jamison v. State of Maryland

DNA Appeal

09-09-2016 No. 11 Maryland Board of Physicians, et al. v. Mark R. Geier, Personal Representative of the Estate of Anne Geier, et al.

Issues – Civil Procedure – 1) Did the trial court err in rejecting the defendants’ assertion of absolute quasi-judicial immunity and denying reconsideration of its default order on liability? 2) Did the trial court err in compelling the production of personal financial information in aid of punitive damages despite the defendants’ absolute quasi-judicial immunity? 3) Did the trial court err in granting the Respondents’ motion for sanctions based on the Petitioners’ refusal to produce materials protected by the deliberative process, executive, attorney-client, and attorney-work-product privileges and the mandatory nondisclosure requirement of Health Occupations § 14-410?
09-09-2016 No. 52 (2015 T.) State of Maryland v. Tyshon Leteek Jones (Reargument)

Issue – Criminal Law – In deciding this case, should the Court re-consider its holding in Roary v. State, 385 Md. 217, 226-36, 867 A.2d 1095, 1100-6 (2005), as to whether first-degree assault may serve as a predicate for second-degree felony murder?
09-08-2016 AG No. 27 (2015 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Andrew Ndubisi Ucheomumu

09-08-2016 AG No. 54 (2015 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Shakaira Simone Mollock

09-08-2016 No. 94 (2015 T.) Kevon Spencer v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Did the trial court commit reversible error by reseating three jurors who had been struck by the defense where there was no evidence to support a finding of racial discrimination and where counsel’s explanations advanced the defense’s strategy and have previously been accepted by the courts as valid, race-neutral explanations for striking a juror? 2) Was the evidence sufficient to support a finding of specific intent for a conviction of attempted second-degree murder?
09-08-2016 No. 4 State of Maryland v. Tevin Hines

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) In a joint trial, was the trial court within its discretion in admitting a co-defendant’s exculpatory statement which did not mention Respondent, but did mention the street where Respondent lived? 2) Was any error in admitting the co-defendant’s statement harmless?
09-08-2016 No. 2 SPAW, LLC v. City of Annapolis

Issues – Local Government – 1) Did the trial court err by failing to dismiss the city’s civil citation for a municipal infraction against Petitioner under § 6-103 of the Local Government Article (“L. G.”) and awarding the city broad injunctive relief? 2) Did the trial court err in holding that abatement of a municipal infraction is not a “penalty” under L. G. § 6-110 for the purpose of applying the one year statute of limitations in § 5-107 of the Courts & Judicial Proceedings Article? 3) Did the trial court err by ignoring newly amended Md. Rules 2-501, which excludes the filing of a motion for summary judgment “after evidence is received at trial on the merits,” when the trial court granted summary judgment in the middle of trial before Petitioner could either respond in writing or present any evidence? 4) Did the trial court err in holding that municipal infractions were civil matters subject to Title 2 of the Md. Rules?
09-07-2016 No. 3 Daniela Bottini, et al. v. Department of Finance, Montgomery County, Maryland

Issues – Criminal Procedure – 1) Did CSA erroneously conclude that a seized bank account was “money” within the meaning of Md.’s CDS forfeiture statute where different deadlines for filing a forfeiture petition apply to “money” than to other types of tangible or intangible personal property? 2) Did CSA erroneously apply to Petitioners’ seized bank account the longer post-conviction forfeiture petition filing deadline for “money”?
09-07-2016 No. 8 Roderick Colvin v. Statet of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Did CSA err in upholding the trial court’s conclusion that, upon request for a jury poll, polling the jury foreperson is unnecessary to ensure a unanimous verdict? 2) Is the claimed defect in the polling procedure cognizable on a motion to correct an illegal sentence?
09-07-2016 No. 9 Hanover Investments, Inc. v. Susan J. Volkman

Issues – Courts and Judicial Proceedings – 1) Did CSA erroneously impose new standards under Md. Code Ann., Courts & Judicial Proceedings Art. (“CJP”) § 3-409(c) by depriving the trial court of all discretion to adjudicate a declaratory judgment action when there is a concurrent proceeding? 2) Did CSA erroneously apply, and thereby alter, the standards under CJP § 3-409(a) and (c) by concluding that there were insufficient facts and circumstances to support the trial court’s findings of unusual and compelling circumstances?
09-07-2016 No. 10 John T. Mitchell v. Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration

Issues – Constitutional Law - 1) Did CSA err in concluding that personalized vanity plates are a non-public forum in which motorists who pay the fee to express their 7-character message may be censored despite expressing otherwise constitutionally protected private speech? 2) Did CSA err in choosing to censor a Spanish word based on the most offensive definition it could imagine, despite the existence of innocuous definitions of the term?
09-01-2016 Bar Admissions  
09-01-2016 AG No. 19 (2015 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Steven Lee Shockett

09-01-2016 No. 1 Wendy Cane v. EZ Rentals

Issues – Real Property – 1) Did the trial court err in denying Petitioner the opportunity to assert and prove a defense under the Rent Escrow Statute to the landlord’s summary ejectment action? 2) Did the trial court err in denying Petitioner’s defense seeking rent offsets in the summary ejectment action?
09-01-2016 No. 5 Trendon Washington v. State of Maryland

DNA appeal