PETITIONS FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
September Term, 2023
Granted November 17, 2023
The issues presented on this page are for informational purposes and intended for a general audience. Unless otherwise indicated, the issues presented on this page are, with edits for brevity, as stated by the petitioner in the petition for writ of certiorari. The only issues listed here are those that the Supreme Court has selected for consideration from the issues presented by the petitioners and the Court will consider those issues as stated by the petitioners.
Aaron Jarvis v. State of Maryland – Case No. 22, September Term, 2023
Issues – Criminal Law – [Edited for clarity for a general audience and for brevity] 1) Did the ACM err when it held that the trial court’s erroneous refusal to instruct the jury on attempted voluntary manslaughter based on imperfect self-defense was harmless error where had the petitioner been convicted of attempted voluntary manslaughter rather than first-degree assault his sentence would be shorter? 2) Did the ACM err when it held that the trial court abused its discretion in not instructing the jury on imperfect self-defense?
Antonio E. Gonzalez v. State of Maryland – Case No. 23, September Term, 2023
Issues – Criminal Law – [Edited for clarity for a general audience and for brevity] 1) What must trial counsel proffer to satisfy Md. Rule 5-616(a)(4) and this Court’s holding in Kazadi v. State, 461 Md. 1 (2020) so as to permit impeachment of a witness with evidence of submission of or interest in applying for a U-Visa (available to persons who have suffered mental or physical abuse and who are helpful in the investigation or prosecution of criminal activity)? 2) Did ACM err when it held that defense counsel’s proffer was insufficient to permit impeachment of State’s witness with evidence of her application for a U-Visa. 3) Did ACM err in holding that any error was harmless even though the relevant witness’ credibility was a central issue in the case and even though Petitioner testified that, during the altercation, he touched the complaining witnesses only to protect himself?
Denied/Dismissed November 20, 2023
Bawa v. Ward – Pet. Docket No. 185
Bennett v. Washington Education Zone – Pet. Docket No. 212
Bowie, Montrelle v. State – Pet. Docket No. 208
Brown v. Ward – Pet. Docket No. 228
Brown, James v. State of Maryland – Pet. Docket No. 206
Dietz v. Logan – Pet. Docket No. 198
Doe, Jane v. State – Pet. Docket No. 216
In the Matter of Hill – Pet. Docket No. 207
In the Matter of Hurley – Pet. Docket No. 194
Johnsdiscountcoins.com v. Ebay, Inc. – Pet. Docket No. 150
Jones, William Nathaniel v. State – Pet. Docket No. 190
Maung v. Midland Credit Management – Pet. Docket No. 149
Moore v. Md. Hemp Coalition – Pet. Docket No. 261
Pineda, Carlos E. v. State – Pet. Docket No. 223
Read, Daniel v. State – Pet. Docket No. 195
Saunders v. Abode Management Consulting – Pet. Docket No. 152
Scalla v. Spring Hill Realty – Pet. Docket No. 157
Sung v. Lancaster Foods – Pet. Docket No. 201
Villanueva v. Bennett – Pet. Docket No. 151
Williams, Dwayne S. v. State – Pet. Docket No. 213
Zajac v. Southwest Airlines – Pet. Docket No. 200
Denied/Dismissed November 21, 2023
Berman v. Modell – Pet. Docket No. 209
Granted November 29, 2023
Darryl Edward Freeman v. State of Maryland – Case No. 24, September Term, 2023
Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Where a witness is not disclosed in discovery or offered at trial as an expert, does Md. law recognize a theory that such a witness may “implicitly” be found to be an expert and therefore provide opinion testimony? 2) Assuming that such an implicit finding is valid, by what means does an opposing party determine the field or area of the witness’s alleged expertise? 3) In the instant case was the detective, who was not disclosed or offered as an expert, properly permitted to testify that in his opinion the words “lick” and “sweet licks,” referred to in text messages between petitioner and his alleged co-conspirators, meant “robbery” and “robbery of an easy target” respectively? 4) Regardless of whether the trial judge makes an implicit or explicit finding, does the State’s noncompliance with Md. Rule 4-263(d)(8) preclude the calling of an expert witness? 5) May a lay witness testify to the meaning of a slang term with which the witness is familiar? 6) Did the trial court in this case properly permit the detective to give lay opinion testimony that the word “lick” means “a robbery”?
Madelyn Bennett, Individually and As Successor Trustee of the Pauline A. Bennett Revocable Living Trust v. Thomas A. Gentile – Case No. 25, September Term, 2023
Issues – Estates & Trusts – 1) Was petitioner an intended third-party beneficiary of an oral retainer agreement between the Trust Settlor and respondent? 2) Does Noble v. Bruce, 349 Md. 730 (1998), apply to the unique facts of this case? 3) Should Noble be overturned and replaced with the “balancing of factors” test adopted by other state courts? 4) Can the collateral litigation doctrine apply when the collateral claim which is litigated in the case is the source of that claim?