Articles Posted in Case law

| by

Gun violence in Baltimore has flared up. Accordingly, news that the Maryland Court of Appeals recently published a criminal law opinion that ruled in favor of a previously convicted defendant caused a big stir among city officials and the media. The Baltimore Sun published an editorial that expressed outrage that the state’s mandatory five years without parole for gun possession by convicted felons would not stand. However, in spite of the press given to this case, the ruling in this case is narrow.

In the case, a man who had a prior nonviolent conviction was arrested and charged with more than one count of possession of a regulated firearm and a statutory handgun carrying violation. The fact that the conviction was nonviolent wound up being critical in the eventual outcome of the case.

At a jury trial, the prosecution and defense stipulated he had been previously convicted of distribution of a controlled substance and that this prevented him from being permitted to possess a regulated firearm. Continue reading

| by

What is a plea agreement? Essentially it is a contract between a criminal defendant and the State in which the defendant enters a plea of guilty or nolo contendere on a charge. The court may accept or reject the agreement, but if it approves the agreement it must follow the terms and interpret it such that the integrity of the agreement is preserved.

Plea agreements are advantageous for some defendants. They can reduce exposure, remove or limit the stress of hearings and trials, and start the correctional process. They can also be advantageous for the State because trials are expensive and if there is no significant issue of guilt, it does not make sense to expend judicial and prosecutorial resources on them.

When is a Maryland court allowed to vacate a guilty plea? There are occasions in which a guilty plea may be vacated by the court. One reason for vacating a guilty plea is that the defendant obtained the plea agreement via fraud or misrepresentation. This occurs, for example, when a defendant agrees to be honest with the government about his involvement, but instead lies and withholds information. Continue reading

| by

When accused of a crime in Maryland, you are entitled to a jury trial. Whether or not a jury trial is the best option for you depends upon the facts of your case. In certain cases there may be good reasons to waive a jury trial and your criminal defense attorney can explain the pros and cons to you. However, before a trial judge can accept a waiver, he or she will advise you about the charges brought against you, the possible penalties and the nature of a jury trial.

Under Maryland Rule 4-246(b), a trial court must first examine you in open court in order to determine that you made the waiver of your right to a jury trial “knowingly and voluntarily.” He or she will announce this finding on the record.

Continue reading

| by

A few months ago, this blog featured a discussion on Maryland v. King, a case that was then only pending before the United States Supreme Court. To refresh readers’ memories: A criminal defendant appealed a rape conviction that occurred only because Maryland police were able to take a cheek swab of his DNA as part of his arrest for an assault. They matched this sample with DNA evidence gathered in a rape from six years before.

The Maryland Court of Appeals overturned the defendant’s conviction on the grounds that these routine cheek swabs violated the Fourth Amendment right against illegal search and seizure. The State appealed the ruling. On June 3, the Supreme Court reinstated the conviction and affirmed the State’s right to gather DNA on a routine basis.

The Supreme Court’s majority opinion, written by Justice Kennedy, compared DNA sampling of the arrested to fingerprinting, which is legal. Justice Kennedy wrote that states could collect DNA from people arrested for “serious offenses.”  The majority opinion also reasoned that Maryland’s law supported the “well established” governmental interest of identifying people in custody as opposed to solving crimes.

Three justices typically regarded as the Court’s liberal justices joined Justice Scalia in the dissent, and Justice Scalia even took the rare step of reading the dissent it from the bench. He warned, “As an entirely predictable consequence of today’s decision, your DNA can be taken and entered into a national DNA database if you are ever arrested, rightly or wrongly, and for whatever reason.” In his view, the majority ruling did not build in limits. While Maryland only allows fingerprinting for people suspected of violent crime or burglary right now, the ruling is so broad it could permit law enforcement to take DNA from someone suspected of a mere traffic violation in the future. Continue reading

| by

Usually a defendant cannot blame drunkenness or intoxication for his or her criminal conduct. However, in Maryland, as in other states, a defendant can ask that the jury receive a voluntary intoxication instruction when he or she is charged with a specific intent crime. A specific intent crime is one in which the prosecution must show that the defendant intended to act in such a way that he or she would cause a specific result. One such crime is first-degree murder.

This instruction is appropriate if a defendant can show evidence of “great intoxication” sufficient to negate the element of specific intent. It is not enough for the defense to show the judge that a defendant drank alcohol before performing the actions that led to a criminal charge. Rather, the evidence of great intoxication must be sufficient for the judge to allow a jury to find that he did not have the necessary mental faculties to act with specific intent. Continue reading

| by

In a recent case, a Maryland appellate court considered, among other issues, the question of whether two convictions for conspiracy to commit first-degree burglary had created double jeopardy. The victim of the burglary lived with his sister in Maryland. In December 2010, he came home to the back door broken open and clothes spread about.

When a policeman responded, he said that the living room was neat, but the victim’s bedroom was ransacked. Several suspects were investigated. The defendant eventually acknowledged his assistance in planning the burglary. There was an agreement that he would get something from the burglary, but he changed his mind before the burglary actually took place without telling his two co-conspirators.

The State presented evidence at trial to show that the defendant made two distinct agreements to burglarize and therefore deserved to be convicted of two separate conspiracies. However, the defendant argued that both his agreements with the two co-conspirators were part of one conspiracy. Continue reading

| by

The Maryland Court of Special Appeals recently addressed two interesting questions of criminal trial procedure. The first question was what kind of crime could be used to impeach (discredit) a witness. The second question was whether a trial court is permitted to refuse a re-cross examination once new testimony is given on an issue.

The case arose in early 2010 when a woman (the defendant) asked a man for a ride home from a strip club. The man agreed and when they got to the apartment where the defendant’s cousin lived, the defendant asked him to accompany her to the apartment. She said she would go home with him, but needed to tell her cousin where she was going.

As they walked to the apartment, the defendant pulled out a handgun and asked the man for his money and keys. She shot him as he got his keys from his pocket and then drove off in his car.

After the defendant left, the man called 911 and gave the police a report. When she was apprehended, the defendant was charged with numerous crimes. At trial, she claimed she acted in self-defense because she was afraid that the man was going to sexually assault her.

During a cross-examination of the man, defense counsel tried to impeach him by introducing evidence of his prior convictions, which included assault on a police officer, threat to do bodily harm and reckless endangerment. Continue reading

| by

A Maryland appellate court recently considered whether a defendant competently waived his constitutional right to have a jury decide his case unanimously. The case arose when the defendant stabbed and killed a man in 2009. After an investigation he was charged with first-degree murder and two related weapons offenses.

The prosecution called several witnesses at trial. One testified that the defendant and his victim were arguing on her lawn around 2:00 a.m. and when she told them to get away from her front door, the victim swung a switchblade at the defendant before leaving. The defendant then went into her house, grabbed a knife and followed him. The defendant returned several minutes later, brandishing a bloody knife and stating “this is what I do if somebody messes with me”.

Another witness had previously told the police she witnessed the murder. She admitted in court she had not witnessed it exactly and was under the influence of drugs during the murder. Continue reading

| by

In Maryland, only United States citizens may serve on the jury for a state case. Recently, a criminal defendant appealed his conviction on the grounds that a Maryland court did not ask potential jurors voir dire questions about their citizenship.

The criminal defendant had previously been convicted of a felony and in this case was indicted for multiple offenses relating to stealing a handgun. Before trial, both parties submitted proposals of voir dire questions. The criminal defendant presented fourteen questions. The State asked nineteen.

The trial court told the jurors that he would ask them questions in order to help the attorneys impanel a fair and impartial jury. He then asked about twenty questions, plus follow-up. The criminal defendant asked the court to ask questions related to citizenship. The court ultimately did not and the criminal defendant was convicted. He appealed. Continue reading

| by

A Maryland appellate court recently decided a case involving a charge of aggravated cruelty to animals. This case arises from the defendant stabbing a fifteen-year-old in Baltimore, Maryland in July 2004. The police officer went to the house of the defendant’s aunt and saw him run away.

A K-9 officer and his dog responded to the first police officer’s call for backup. They discovered the defendant hiding in another backyard with his hands hidden. The officer ordered him to come out with his hands up and warned him he would release the dog if the defendant didn’t follow his instructions.

The defendant did not show both his hands. The officer repeated his warning. When the defendant refused and resisted another officer, the officer released the dog. The dog had been trained to bite once in order to catch a suspect and to release him only after he followed the officer’s instructions. In response to the dog’s attempt to catch him, the defendant cut the dog above his eye.

When the defendant again tried to escape, the officer again told the dog to catch him. The dog grabbed the defendant’s left side as he tried to climb over the fence. The officer eventually told the dog to release so that the defendant would not further harm the dog. Officers caught the defendant on the other side of the fence. Continue reading

Contact Information
Main Office
18310 Montgomery Village
Ave #250
Gaithersburg, MD 20879
Toll Free: (888) 519-2801Phone: (301) 519-2801Fax: (301) 519-2802

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2024, Anthony A. Fatemi, LLC
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design