# Huff v. State

> Court of Appeals of Maryland · December 20, 1991 · 325 Md. 55

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9752746

## Case

- **Full name:** Clinton R. HUFF v. STATE of Maryland
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Maryland
- **Decided:** December 20, 1991
- **Citations:** 325 Md. 55; 599 A.2d 428; 1991 Md. LEXIS 210
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by McAULIFFE
- **Judges:** Eldridge, Rodowsky, McAuliffe, Chasanow, Karwacki, Bell
- **Cited by:** 13 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/9752746

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding Abney "does not constitutionally mandate interlocutory appeals” and that due process does not require the State to provide an immediate appeal

## Opinion text

McAULIFFE, Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the result. I agree with the Court’s conclusion that this defendant’s right to demand a jury trial reasonably ensures appellate review of his double jeopardy *78 claim prior to trial, thus affording him the full protection of the Fifth Amendment and equal protection of the laws.
I am unwilling to join the Court’s dictum suggesting that a defendant charged in the District Court with an offense punishable by imprisonment for 90 days or less has no right to an immediate appeal of the denial of a motion to dismiss based upon double jeopardy grounds. That question should be deferred for consideration in an appropriate case.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9752746. Public record. Not legal advice.