# Tharp v. State

> Court of Appeals of Maryland · December 7, 2000 · 362 Md. 77

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9710369

## Case

- **Full name:** Todd Alan THARP v. STATE of Maryland
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Maryland
- **Decided:** December 7, 2000
- **Citations:** 362 Md. 77; 763 A.2d 151; 2000 Md. LEXIS 762
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Raker
- **Judges:** Harrell, Rodowsky
- **Cited by:** 36 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9710369

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that the petitioner's trial attorney had the right, as a member of the public, to challenge a courtroom closure on the public's behalf
- holding that trial judges have no authority beyond what is permitted by Rule 4-261 to order depositions in criminal cases

## Opinion text

*122 RAKER, Judge,
concurring:
I concur in the judgment only because I believe that the trial court committed no error in this case. Edward Barry, Tharp’s counsel, was listed as a witness on the defense witness list and was never removed from the list as a potential witness.
The majority concludes that the trial court “erred from the inception in not inquiring further or not recognizing that Tharp’s attorney had been redacted from the witness list ... and thus was no longer subject to Rule 5-615.” Maj. op. at 105. I disagree. I do not think it apparent that Seller’s attorney intended to redact his witness list and, if that is what he intended to do, he need only have said so. The record in this case indicates that the prosecutor, as well as the trial judge, continued to believe that Mr. Barry remained on the list. Inasmuch as the rule mandates sequestration if the request is made before testimony commences, under the circumstances presented herein, the trial court properly sequestered Mr. Barry.
Judge WILNER has authorized me to state that he joins in the views expressed in this concurring opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9710369. Public record. Not legal advice.