Case law

Roebuck v. State

148 Md. App. 563 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 23, 2002

But then, of course, which is why the defense would like this this [sic] in, he very clearly then says Mr. … for example, the Court of Appeals considered the reliability of a declaration against penal interest made by an unavailable declarant, offered by the State against the accused in a criminal trial, to determine whether it qualified

Reagan v. State

4 Md. App. 590 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 25, 1968

We think the instant case is clearly distinguishable from St. … I., qualified as an expert in tool mark identification, testified that it was his opinion, based on examination with a comparison microscope, that the chain on Jennett’s door had been cut with the bolt cutters found in the

Goren v. United States Fire Insurance

113 Md. App. 674 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 6, 1997

He has not been qualified as an expert. He has testified as to his investigation. It does go to the ultimate issue in this case as to causation. … Moreover, although appellee’s accident reconstruction expert, Leibnow, testified to some of the same conclusions that Trooper Robbins offered, Robbins’s testimony was clearly more damaging to appellant.

Sharp v. Downey

197 Md. App. 123 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 17, 2010

It explained, id. at 588-84, 142 A.2d 810 : [T]he express easement of travel should not be held as establishing an intention on the part of the parties not to grant an easement which was clearly necessary and perfectly obvious … But, because "factual findings by an arbitrator are virtually immune from challenge,” Mandl v.

Testerman v. H & R BLOCK, INC.

22 Md. App. 320 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Aug 8, 1974

That punitive damages are allowed in such cases and that such an instruction is proper is clearly established. … Weisberg, with a level of competence known to Block, to be held out to the public as qualified tax consultants.

York v. State

56 Md. App. 222 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Nov 4, 1983

Moreover, the two police witnesses who characterized the weapon as “inoperable” both in effect qualified their opinions in that regard. … It is the § 36F definition that applies to the handgun offense established by § 36B(d), and not the broader definition contained in Art. 27, § 441(c). Tisdale v. State, 30 Md.App. 334, 343 , 353 A.2d 653 (1976). 2 .

State v. Luckett

188 Md. App. 399 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Oct 5, 2009

Like a standing epithet in classical literature, every mention of the right to counsel was appended by the qualifying notion of “when we’re discussing this case specifically.” … The two were clearly talking across each other, and there was no meeting of the minds. The appellee asked about but was never told of “the consequences of abandoning” his right to counsel.

Pitt v. State

152 Md. App. 442 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 23, 2003

The writing at issue is clearly inadmissible hearsay. … [because] even without [Exhibit Five], there was no question but that the value of the property far exceeded the $500 required to establish felony theft.”

Sangster v. State

70 Md. App. 456 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 5, 1987

Cerino, 19 Md.App. 619, 637 , 313 A.2d 505 (1974), we held that an opinion expressed in a hospital record by a qualified person is admissible into evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule, and “it is incumbent upon the … It clearly would not establish an assault with intent to murder. It clearly would establish an assault with intent to maim, disfigure or disable. Glenn, 68 Md.App. at 394 n. 8, 511 A.2d 1110 .

Varriale v. State

218 Md. App. 47 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jul 30, 2014

While the form states that Varriale’s DNA “can be used in any future criminal prosecution,” the form does not clearly specify whether the State may use the DNA only in a “criminal prosecution” for the alleged rape that … (f) A record or sample that qualifies for expungement or destruction under this section and is matched concurrent with or subsequent to the date of

Poteet v. Sauter

136 Md. App. 383 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Feb 1, 2001

Thus, “the bringing of the action by the *407 employee, who is clearly a real party in interest ... satisfies the requirement of Rule 2-201.” Id. at 10 , 590 A.2d 161 . … Cohen, 538 A.2d 1096, 1102 (Del.1988) (noting that to allow an insurance company to be substituted as a party for the deceased insured would be “contrary to the long-established practice in Delaware that the existence of

Scott v. State

110 Md. App. 464 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Jun 13, 1996

In Maryland, “there is a strong presumption ... that judges are impartial participants in the legal process, whose duty to preside when qualified is as strong as their duty to refrain from presiding when not qualified.” … Next, we must establish what constitutes contempt of court. In Goldsborough v.

Walker v. State

53 Md. App. 171 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 6, 1982

The contention is clearly without merit. … The intent element already being present, the act of assault would certainly qualify, under attempt law, as the "act in furtherance of that intent going beyond mere preparation.” Gray v.

Pearlstein v. State

76 Md. App. 507 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 29, 1988

The evidence in this case clearly established that the appellant and Jeffrey A. Levitt were partners and accomplices in *519 a common scheme to steal from Old Court. … We are persuaded that Old Court had a sufficient interest in the money to qualify as an “owner” or victim within the contemplation of the Consolidated Theft Statute.

Gray v. State

38 Md. App. 343 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Dec 14, 1977

force and have completed a basic training course established by the Police Training Commission. … See also Laws of Ma., 1918, ch. 217, directly extending the 1880 Act to a wide variety of business establishments.

Massey v. State

173 Md. App. 94 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 7, 2007

The issue before us, therefore, is whether the information supplied by Griffith to Marzec was sufficient to establish probable cause for Massey’s arrest. … To suggest that appellant ought to bear the burden of establishing useful information from a report with which he has not been provided is, at best, disingenuous.

Petitto v. Petitto

147 Md. App. 280 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Sep 6, 2002

Further, appellant noted that appellee had failed to present any evidence as to what job she was qualified to hold or what money she could earn. … The court then established appellee’s child support obligation using the “ceiling” or top of the Maryland Guidelines.

Hogan v. State

240 Md. App. 470 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 29, 2019

The Thompson opinion also established that although a trial judge might be able to answer the competency question without ordering an evaluation, it is clearly within the judge’s discretion to order such an evaluation. … Otherwise the word “error” would be enough, standing alone, without the qualifying requirement that such error be “plain.” (Emphasis in original).

Johnson v. State

9 Md. App. 327 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Apr 14, 1970

State, 103 Md. 17 , adopted this rule of evidence but qualified it by stating at 103 Md. 20 , “a foundation must first be laid, by proof, sufficient in the opinion of the judge, to establish, prima facie, the fact of conspiracy … The testimony of an accomplice is clearly admissible to prove a conspiracy, Foster v.

Service Transport, Inc. v. Hurricane Express, Inc.

185 Md. App. 25 · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · Mar 27, 2009

records pertaining to the establishment and funding of the business. … Clearly, appellant did not ask the circuit court to determine whether its own case should possibly be dismissed for absence of an indispensable party under Rule 2-211(c). 12 Rather, it argued that under Rule 2-211(a), KSI