# Gutierrez v. State

> Court of Appeals of Maryland · November 29, 2011 · 423 Md. 476

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9753162

## Case

- **Full name:** Mario Rodriguez GUTIERREZ v. STATE of Maryland
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Maryland
- **Decided:** November 29, 2011
- **Citations:** 423 Md. 476; 32 A.3d 2; 2011 Md. LEXIS 682
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Greene
- **Judges:** Adkins, Bell, Greene
- **Cited by:** 24 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/9753162

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding that, notwithstanding the circuit court’s erroneous admission of expert testimony in contravention of Md. Rule 5-702 and 4-263(d)(8)(A), the error was harmless predicated on a comprehensive review of the record therein
- recognizing the inflammatory nature of evidence regarding gang membership
- declining to admit evidence describing the defendant’s gang as more violent than other gangs

## Opinion text

GREENE, J.,
concurring and dissenting.
I agree with the majority that most of the expert witness’s gang-related testimony is relevant to the issue of Gutierrez’s motive to commit murder. I also agree with the majority’s conclusion that “the trial court erred in allowing [the expert *523 witness] to comment that MS-13 is the gang that law enforcement ‘had seen the most violence with recently for the past four, four and a half years in this region.’ ” Op. at 499, 32 A.3d at 16. I disagree, however, with the majority’s conclusion that the trial judge’s error was harmless. Accordingly, I join in and adopt the reasoning articulated in Chief Judge Bell’s dissenting opinion, to the extent that the majority failed to apply the harmless error test as explained by this Court in Dorsey v. State, 276 Md. 638 , 350 A.2d 665 (1976) and recently reaffirmed by this Court in Perez v. State, 420 Md. 57 , 21 A.3d 1048 (2011); Dove v. State, 415 Md. 727 , 4 A.3d 976 (2010); Donaldson v. State, 416 Md. 467 , 7 A.3d 84 (2010), and Parker v. State, 408 Md. 428 , 970 A.2d 320 (2009).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9753162. Public record. Not legal advice.