SCHEDULE OF ORAL ARGUMENTS
September Term, 2019
Thursday, February 6, 2020:
AG No. 65 (2018 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Samuel Edward Hensley
Attorney for Petitioner: Michael W. Blow, Jr.
Attorney for Respondent: Samuel Edward Hensley
No. 41 Pizza Di Joey, LLC, and Madame BBQ, LLC v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore
Issues – Local Code – Does Baltimore City Code, Art. 15, Section 17-33 violate Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights?
Attorney for Petitioner: Robert P. Frommer
Attorney for Respondent: Rachel Simmonsen
No. 45 State of Maryland v. Kaleem Michael Frazier
Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Should this Court reconsider the rule articulated in State v. Lancaster, 332 Md. 385 (1993), and hold that where two offenses are deemed the same for purposes of merger, a court may impose a sentence based on the offense that carries the greater penalty? 2) If the Court permits a sentencing court to impose a sentence available pursuant to a lesser-included offense, even if it provides the greater penalty, was Respondent’s sentence legal?
Attorney for Petitioner: Virginia S. Hovermill
Attorney for Respondent: Steven M. Klepper
No. 50 American Radiology Services, LLC, et al. v. Martin Reiss
Issues – Torts – 1) Did CSA err in interpreting and extending Copsey v. Park, 453 Md. 141 (2017), to require a medical malpractice defendant arguing non-party negligence to present standard-of-care expert testimony where the defendant is not asserting non-party negligence as an affirmative defense? 2) Assuming arguendo that it was error for the trial court to submit the question of non-party negligence to the jury, did CSA err in concluding that the error was prejudicial based solely on an initially incorrectly completed juror questionnaire that was promptly corrected?
Attorney for Petitioner: Mark D. Maneche
Attorney for Respondent: David M. Kopstein
Friday, February 7, 2020:
No. 46 Teddy Shannon v. State of Maryland
Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Should Petitioner’s conviction for illegal possession of a regulated firearm, after a disqualifying conviction for possession with intent to distribute, be affirmed, notwithstanding the drafting error in Count Five of the indictment which mislabeled the disqualifying conviction – ‘to wit: 05/09/2008, Possession with Intent to Distributed, Case No.: 107312013’ – as a “crime of violence”? 2) Did the CSA err in holding that the original indictment charged a violation of Public Safety Article (“P.S.”), §5-133(c)(1)(i), and that an amendment with Petitioner’s consent was necessary to change the character of that predicate offense to a violation of P.S. §5-133(c)(1)(ii)?
Attorney for Petitioner: Jeffrey M. Ross
Attorney for Respondent: Jessica V. Carter
No. 47 Stanley Rochkind, et al. v. Starlena Stevenson
Issues – Torts – 1) Was it error for the trial court to allow Plaintiff’s medical causation expert to testify that Plaintiff has attentional and behavioral injuries without providing a reliable method for attributing those injuries to lead exposure when Plaintiff had already been diagnosed with ADHD? 2) Was it error for the trial court to allow Plaintiff’s medical expert to render specific causation opinions based on general epidemiological studies? 3) Should the Court adopt the standard for admitting expert testimony under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993)? 4) Was Plaintiff’s medical causation expert’s specific causation opinion admissible in this case under Rule 5-702, applying the standard set forth in Daubert?
Attorneys for Petitioner: Thomas J. Cullen, Jr. and Ronald D. Getchey
Attorneys for Respondent: Scott E. Nevin and Suzanne C. Shapiro
No. 48 Jonathan Hemming v. State of Maryland
Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Does a trial court have discretion under Md. Rule 4-253 to bifurcate separate counts between judge and jury in a single trial? 2) Did the trial court mistakenly believe that it had no authority under Rule 4-253 to bifurcate separate counts between judge and jury in a single trial and, as a result, fail to exercise its discretion under the rule? 3) Assuming, arguendo, that the trial court recognized and exercised its discretion, was the court’s refusal to bifurcate the counts charging possession of a regulated firearm by a disqualified person and possession of ammunition by a disqualified person from the remaining counts of the indictment an abuse of discretion under the circumstances of this case?
Attorney for Petitioner: Mark Colvin
Attorney for Respondent: Brenda Gruss
Monday, February 10, 2020:
No. 49 In the Matter of Bernard L. Collins
Issues – Workers’ Compensation – Did the release in the settlement agreement between Mr. Collins, Huntingtown Volunteer Fire Department, Chesapeake Employers’ Insurance Company and Selective Insurance Company operate to bar Mrs. Collins’ subsequent claim for death benefits under the Maryland Workers’ Compensation Act?
Attorneys for Petitioner: Michael H. Daney and Robin E. Hauptmann
Attorneys for Respondent: Kenneth M. Berman and Allyson N. Bloom
Misc. No. 6 Baltimore City Police Department, et al. v. Ivan Potts
Certified Question from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland
Question - Whether, under the Maryland Local Government Tort Claims Act and related contractual provisions, in light of the undisputed facts in the record, the three former Baltimore City Police officers named in this action are entitled to indemnity for the judgment entered against them herein; that is, whether, as a matter of law on the undisputed facts, the judgment sought to be enforced by Plaintiff is based on "tortious acts or omissions committed by the [officers] within the scope of [their] employment with [the City]."
Attorney for Petitioner: Justin Sperance Conroy
Attorney for Respondent: Paul Zukerberg
No. 51 Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Estate of William James, By Its Personal Representative, Menyonde Lewis
Issue – Torts – Under the Maryland Local Government Tort Claims Act and related contractual provisions, in light of the undisputed facts in the record, are the three former Baltimore City Police officers named in this action entitled to indemnity for the judgment entered against them herein; that is, as a matter of law on the undisputed facts, is the judgment sought to be enforced by Plaintiff based on "tortious acts or omissions committed by the [officers] within the scope of [their] employment with [the City]?
Attorney for Petitioner: Justin Sperance Conroy
Attorney for Respondent: Mandy L. Miliman
On the day of argument, counsel are instructed to register in the Clerk’s Office no later than 9:30 a.m. unless otherwise notified.
After February 10, 2020, the Court will recess until March 5, 2020.
SUZANNE C. JOHNSON