# Calloway v. State

> Court of Appeals of Maryland · June 10, 2010 · 414 Md. 616

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9884640

## Case

- **Full name:** Leon Steven CALLOWAY v. STATE of Maryland
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Maryland
- **Decided:** June 10, 2010
- **Citations:** 414 Md. 616; 996 A.2d 869; 2010 Md. LEXIS 211
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Harrell
- **Judges:** Bell
- **Cited by:** 23 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/9884640

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that the trial court committed reversible error in limiting defense counsel’s cross-examination of the State’s key witness regarding his expectation of leniency from the State
- holding that “the defense of imperfect self-defense does not apply and is not available to mitigate” unlawful shooting with intent to disable
- holding that trial court abused its discretion in limiting defense’s cross-examination of former cell mate about his hope of State’s leniency

## Opinion text

HARRELL, J.,
concurring.
I concur with the result reached in the Majority opinion and most of the reasoning explaining that result. I depart, however, from its somewhat obscure repudiation of two of this *640 Court’s opinions (Ebb v. State, 341 Md. 578 , 671 A.2d 974 (1996); and Watkins v. State, 328 Md. 95 , 613 A.2d 379 (1992)), apparently in favor of the dissent in Ebb and a Court of Special Appeals’s opinion, Leeks v. State, 110 Md.App. 543 , 678 A.2d 80 (1996), authored by Judge Murphy while serving on the intermediate appellate court.
The Majority opinion need not overrule any part of either Ebb or Watkins in order to reach its goal in the present case. Rather, Ebb and Watkins may be distinguished from the case at hand on the basis explained by the Majority opinion at 635-37, 996 A.2d at 879-81. Moreover, when this Court disapproves its earlier precedent, in whole or in part, it should do so on a principled basis transparently explained in the subsequent opinion. I cannot say that the Majority opinion here does so and most certainly it does not persuade me to join its rejection of Ebb and Watkins .

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9884640. Public record. Not legal advice.