# Tichnell v. State > Court of Appeals of Maryland · June 10, 1980 · 287 Md. 695 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9765049 ## Case - **Full name:** Richard Danny Tichnell v. State of Maryland - **Court:** Court of Appeals of Maryland - **Decided:** June 10, 1980 - **Citations:** 287 Md. 695; 415 A.2d 830; 1980 Md. LEXIS 187 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Concurrence by Cole - **Judges:** Murphy, C.J., and Smith, Digges, Eldridge, Cole, Davidson and Rodowsky - **Cited by:** 217 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/9765049 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - finding that modern death penalty statute satisfied Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and MDR Article 25 but remanding for re-sentencing because death sentence had been applied arbitrarily - explaining Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 92 S.Ct. 2726, 33 L.Ed.2d 346 (1972); Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280, 96 S.Ct. 2978, 49 L.Ed.2d 944 (1976); Roberts v. Louisiana, 428 U.S. 325, 96 S.Ct. 3001, 49 L.Ed.2d 974 (1976); Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 96 S.Ct. 2… - explaining that in capital cases, Section 414(e) directs the Court to consider the factors enumerated therein in addition to those otherwise properly raised before the Court on appeal - explaining that the jury is not obligated to believe the defendant's version of events, but is permitted to draw its own conclusions based on the other evidence presented ## Opinion text Cole, J., concurring: I concur in the result, there being, in my opinion, no necessity to reach the constitutional issues in the case. Davidson, J., concurring: I concur in the result. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9765049. Public record. Not legal advice.