SEPTEMBER TERM 2023 Webcasts
Oral Arguments Archives
September Term 2022 Webcasts
September Term 2021 Webcasts
September Term 2020 Webcasts
September Term 2019 Webcasts
September Term 2018 Webcasts
September Term 2017 Webcasts
September Term 2016 Webcasts
September Term 2015 Webcasts
September Term 2014 Webcasts
September Term 2013 Webcasts
September Term 2012 Webcasts
September Term 2011 Webcasts
September Term 2010 Webcasts
September Term 2009 Webcasts
September Term 2008 Webcasts
September Term 2007 Webcasts
September Term 2006 Webcasts
Webcasts and the archived recordings of webcasts are made available to the general public for informational purposes only and do not constitute an official record of court proceedings. Recording or copying of any portion of the live webcast or the archived recording of a webcast is prohibited without the express permission of the Supreme Court, which can be obtained by contacting Government Relations and Public Affairs at 410-260-1488 or at email@example.com. Copies of the recorded audio of the proceedings are available from the Clerk upon request and payment of a $10.00 fee.
|December 2023 Schedule|
|12-05-2023||AG No. 53 (2022 T.)||Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Vernon Charles Donnelly|
|12-05-2023||No. 12||Darrell Matthews v. State of Maryland|
|12-04-2023||No. 9||Corey Cunningham, on behalf of Kodi Gaines, a minor v. Baltimore County, et al|
Issues – Constitutional Law – 1) Did ACM err in holding that the law enforcement officer was entitled to qualified immunity with respect to petitioner’s innocent bystander’s substantive due process claim? 2) Does a party waive appellate rights in a second appeal following remand on an issue the trial court did not address in the proceedings prior to the first appeal?
|12-04-2023||No. 11||In the Matter of the Petition of the Md. Office of People's Counsel|
Issues – Public Utilities – 1) Should the Public Service Commission’s interpretation of the Merger Order be given the usual deference afforded Commission evidentiary findings, rather than reviewed in the light of the parties’ reasonable understanding of the Merger Order at the time it was issued? 2) Does an increase of $7.8 million in corporate costs post-merger comply with the Merger Order’s plain language, intent, and purpose that the merger produce “tangible financial benefits” in the form of a “reduction in distribution rates” for customers?
|November 2023 Schedule|
|11-06-2023||Misc. No. 1||In the Matter of the Application of Ian Patrick Wright for Admission to the Bar of Maryland|
|11-06-2023||No. 8||Charles Mitchell v. State of Maryland|
Issue – Criminal Law – Should Stewart v. State, 399 Md. 146 (2007) – which summarily rejected the request to ask voir dire questions regarding the credibility of children, like the one at issue in this case, that is: whether any prospective juror would be more or less likely to believe a witness merely because the witness is a child – be reconsidered in light of recent case law governing voir dire?
|11-06-2023||No. 4||Westminster Management, LLC, et al. v. Tenae Smith, et al.|
Issues – Real Property – 1) Did the ACM err in reversing the trial court’s judgment on the grounds that the undefined term “rent” in Md. Code § 8-401 of the Real Property (“RP”) Article means only the periodic charge for use or occupancy of the premises, contrary to this Court’s precedent? 2) Does Maryland law allow a landlord and tenant to contract in the lease the manner in which the tenant’s payments for rent and other hard costs will be applied and allocated? 3) Does Maryland law allow a landlord to pass on its costs in initiating a summary ejectment action under RP § 8-401, including agent and summons fees, to a delinquent tenant under a lease? 4) Did the ACM err in reversing the trial courts denial of class certification, where the unique and individualized circumstances of the claims and defenses as to each putative claimant render this lawsuit unsuitable for class action treatment? 5) Whether Respondents are entitled to summary judgment on liability and declaratory judgments regarding their rights?
Please note: These oral arguments were held at Dr. Henry A. Wise, Jr. High School in Upper Marlboro, MD.
|Motor Vehicle Administration v. Rahq Deika Montana Usan|
Issue – Transportation – Did the administrative law judge correctly find that reasonable grounds existed under Md. Code § 16-205.1 of the Transportation Article for a law enforcement officer to request a motorist to take a test for alcohol concentration, despite there being no odor of alcoholic beverage on his breath and a preliminary breath test result reflecting 0.00 blood alcohol content, but where the motorist was driving erratically and with indicia of intoxication to include horizontal gaze nystagmus and lack of coordination and balance?
Please note: These oral arguments were held at Dr. Henry A. Wise, Jr. High School in Upper Marlboro, MD.
|In the Matter of Mark McCloy|
Issues – Public Safety – 1) Did ACM err in affirming the Maryland State Police’s (“MSP”) denial of petitioner’s application to purchase a regulated firearm? 2) Did ACM err in finding that the relevant Md. statute to be considered for equivalence is the statue in effect at the time of the application, not the statute in effect at the time of the out-of-state conviction? 3) Did ACM err in adopting a “substantial evidence” test that fails to provide clear criteria for determining the equivalence of out-of-state offenses and affords unreasonable deference to the agency’s changing statutory interpretations? 4) Did ACM err in finding that a “reasonable mind” could accept the MSP’s conclusion, given that MSP’s conclusion has abruptly and inexplicably changed absent any changes to the relevant facts or law?
|October 2023 Schedule|
|10-02-2023||No. 7||Adnan Syed v. Young Lee, as Victim's Representative, et al.|
Issues – Criminal Procedure – 1) Does a lawfully entered nolle prosequi render moot an appeal alleging procedural violations at a hearing occurring prior to the nolle prosequi? 2) Does a victim’s representative, a non-party to a case, have the right to attend a vacatur hearing in-person or does remote attendance satisfy the right? 3) Was notice to the victim’s representative of the vacatur hearing sufficient where the State complied with all statutory and rules-based notice requirements? 4) Must a victim’s representative seeking reversal show prejudice on appeal? 5) Is a victim’s right to speak incorporated into the Vacatur Statute, Md. Code § 8-301.1 of the Criminal Procedure Article, where no party or entity other than the victim has an interest in challenging the evidence alleged to support vacatur?
|10-02-2023||Misc. No. 65 (2022 T.)||In the Matter of A.C.|
|10-02-2023||No. 5||Charles Riley, Jr., Revocable Trust, et al. v. Venice Beach Citizens Association, Inc.|
Issues – Real Property – 1) Did the trial court abuse its discretion by vacating and reversing an interlocutory order granting partial summary judgment in favor of Petitioner, given that the court (a) did not vacate the interlocutory order until the conclusion of a trial in which Petitioner had no reason to put on evidence concerning claims that were already adjudicated in its favor and (b) entered judgment in favor of Respondent because, according to the ACM, “the evidence at trial did not support” Petitioner’s claims? 2) Did the ACM abuse its discretion by directing the trial court to reconsider Respondent’s counter-complaint on remand, given that final judgment was entered against Respondent on its counter-complaint, Respondent didn’t note any cross-appeal from the judgment, and Respondent did not assert any error regarding the trial court’s judgment in its brief to the ACM?
|September 2023 Schedule|
|09-08-2023||Misc. No. 62 (2022 T.)||Application of Samuel E. Howie for Admission to the Bar of Maryland|
|09-08-2023||No. 2||Francois Browne v. State of Maryland|
Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Did the ACM err by deciding on its own initiative that Maryland courts should no longer adhere to the exclusionary approach to other-crimes evidence under Md. Rule 5-404(b), when that issue was not decided by the trial judge and was not raised, briefed, or argued by the parties on appeal? 2) If not, should this Court reject the ACM’s exclusionary approach to Md. Rule 5-404(b)? 3) Did ACM err by adopting the “doctrine of chances” and by applying that doctrine to this case? 4) In a trial for the abuse and murder of Petitioner’s girlfriend’s toddler, did the trial court err and abuse its discretion by allowing evidence relating to Petitioner’s previous Alford plea to child abuse resulting in the death of his own baby? 5) Does “due diligence” under Md. Rule 4-331(c) require defense attorneys to audit the contents of the State’s admitted exhibits before allowing the exhibits to go to the jury? 6) Where defense counsel relied on the prosecutor’s representations regarding the contents of the State’s exhibits, did the trial court err or abuse its discretion by denying Petitioner’s motion for a new trial, which was based on a discovery that videos pertaining to the case but not admitted into evidence had been present in the jury room during deliberations?
|09-08-2023||No. 3||In re: M.P.|
Issues – Courts & Judicial Proceedings – 1) As an issue of first impression, does the newly enacted Juvenile Justice Reform Act (“JJRA”), Md. Code Ann. § 3-8A-03 of the Courts & Judicial Proceedings Article, which establishes a minimum age of jurisdiction for the juvenile court, apply to cases pending at the time of the statute’s enactment? 2) As an issue of first impression, is an order denying a motion to dismiss for lack of juvenile court jurisdiction immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine?
|09-07-2023||AG No. 2||Petition of Sherwood R. Wescott for Reinstatement to the Bar of Maryland|
|09-07-2023||No. 1||In the Matter of SmartEnergy Holdings, LLC|
Issues – Public Utilities – 1) Did the ACM err in finding that the Public Service Commission (“the Commission”) has jurisdiction to interpret and enforce Md. Code, Commercial Law §14-2201(f), the Maryland Telephone Solicitations Act (“MTSA”)? 2) Did the ACM err in finding that a telephone call made by a potential customer to SmartEnergy in response to a previously mailed postcard was a violation of the MTSA? 3) Did the ACM err in holding that the Commission’s findings were supported by substantial evidence and that the penalty imposed was not arbitrary and capricious?