# Longus v. State

> Court of Appeals of Maryland · October 26, 2010 · 416 Md. 433

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9774719

## Case

- **Full name:** Kenneth LONGUS v. STATE of Maryland
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Maryland
- **Decided:** October 26, 2010
- **Citations:** 416 Md. 433; 7 A.3d 64; 2010 Md. LEXIS 624
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Harrell
- **Judges:** Greene, Harrell, Murphy
- **Cited by:** 10 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/9774719

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- Stating that the reviewing court makes its own independent appraisal of the law but defers to the trial courts finding of facts unless they are clearly erroneous
- explaining that a court may not “exclude additional spectators who did not participate in the disruption based on the conduct of one spectator”

## Opinion text

HARRELL, J.,
concurring and dissenting.
Although I agree with Judge Murphy’s dissent insofar as it prefers the “substantial reason” test to the “overriding interest” test, I join the judgment of the Majority opinion because, on this record, the State failed to meet its burden to demonstrate a substantial reason to exclude Norris, if not Myers also, solely by proffer of the prosecutor. Maj. op. at 455, 7 A.3d at 77. Even if the modality of a proffer was a
*466 proper means to place the facts before the trial judge in these circumstances, the substance of the proffer here was inadequate. Maj. op. at 461, 7 A.3d at 80-81. Wise’s post hoc testimony, given after the closure was ordered, should not be considered in this analysis. Maj. op. at 456-57, 7 A.3d at 78.
For these reasons, I join the judgment of the Majority opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9774719. Public record. Not legal advice.