# Lodowski v. State

> Court of Appeals of Maryland · March 24, 1986 · 302 Md. 691

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9753072

## Case

- **Full name:** Kenneth James LODOWSKI v. STATE of Maryland
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Maryland
- **Decided:** March 24, 1986
- **Citations:** 302 Md. 691; 490 A.2d 1228
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Eldridge
- **Judges:** Murphy, Smith, Eldridge, Cole, Rodowsky, Couch, Orth
- **Cited by:** 52 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/9753072

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that the predecessor to § 781(d) “is concerned only with victim impact evidence that is submitted to the court or jury by way of a statement included in a presentence investigation report”
- finding prior crimes evidence improperly admitted when record was "devoid of evidence that the crime was in fact committed"

## Opinion text

ELDRIDGE, Judge,
concurring.
I agree with the judgment and with all portions of the Court’s opinion except the section dealing with victim impact evidence. The views expressed in that section are dicta. Furthermore, the matter may not arise again in this case after our reversal and remand. As both the majority opinion and Judge Cole’s concurring opinion illustrate, the admissibility of the victim impact evidence in a case of this type presents constitutional issues. I would adhere to our normal policy of not ruling upon constitutional questions unnecessarily. See, e.g., Rutherford v. Rutherford, 296 Md. 347 , 364 n. 6 (majority opinion), 366-367 (concurring opinion) 464 A.2d 228 (1983), and cases there cited. Conse *753 quently, I would refrain from expressing any opinion concerning the admissibility of the victim impact evidence at the prior sentencing proceeding.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9753072. Public record. Not legal advice.