SCHEDULE OF ORAL ARGUMENTS
September Term, 2018
Wednesday, October 3, 2018:
Bar Admissions
AG. No. 53 (2017 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Yolanda Massaabioseh Thompson
Attorney for Petitioner: Michael Warren Blow, Jr.
Attorney for Respondent: Yolanda Massaabioseh Thompson
No. 15 Wesley Cagle v. State of Maryland
Issue – Criminal Procedure – Does a trial court err in precluding a criminal defendant from using trial testimony video in closing argument?
Attorney for Petitioner: Chaz R. Ball
Attorney for Respondent: Carrie J. Williams
No. 16 Karen McDonell v. Harford County Housing Agency
Issues – Administrative Law – 1) Did Respondent err in terminating a voucher without affording procedural due process guaranteed under federal and MD administrative common law? 2) Does a MD charge of second degree assault constitute “violent criminal activity” and grounds for voucher termination? 3) Did Respondent err in interpreting its policy to require notice within two weeks of an unplanned and unforeseen absence from the housing rented with the voucher? 4) Is breach of a financial obligation that had been cured adequate grounds for voucher termination? 5) Did Respondent err in failing to explicitly consider all relevant facts before voucher termination?
Attorney for Petitioner: Ejaz H. Baluch, Jr.
Attorney for Respondent: Bradley J. Neitzel
No. 13 Craig Williams v. State of Maryland
Issue – Criminal Procedure – Did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying a motion for new trial where the court gave a pattern jury instruction and, after the jury rendered its verdict, the court, prosecution, and defense all acknowledged that the instruction erroneously omitted an element of the offense for which the defendant was convicted?
Attorney for Petitioner: J. Bradford McCullough
Attorney for Respondent: Cathleen C. Brockmeyer
Thursday, October 4, 2018:
AG No. 58 (2016 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Andrew Ndubisi Ucheomumu
Attorneys for Petitioner: Jennifer L. Thompson and Raymond A. Hein
Attorney for Respondent: Andrew Ndubisi Ucheomumu
No. 20 State of Maryland v. Kevin Sewell
Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Should this Court grant review to resolve a conflict among opinions in CSA by adopting a principle of narrow construction with respect to the marital communications privilege? 2) Did the trial court properly exercise its discretion by allowing the State to introduce text messages that Respondent sent to his wife’s cell phone?
Attorney for Petitioner: Peter R. Naugle
Attorney for Respondent: Erin C. Murphy
No. 21 The Town of Forest Heights v. The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission, et al.
Issues – Local Government – 1) Did the trial court err when it invalidated two Resolutions of Petitioner that, collectively, annexed into the Town approximately 737 acres of land without the consent of the owners of 25% of the assessed value of the lands annexed by each Resolution, where all the annexed lands were tax-exempt, were unoccupied, and where, consistent with City of Salisbury v. Banker’s Life, 21 Md.App. 396 (1974), the owners of the land were not required to provide their consents to the annexations? 2) Did the trial court err when it determined that a portion of the Town’s Annexation Plan violates Md. Code Local Government Article, § 4-104(b), and Land Use Article, § 17-303(a), and, as a result, ordered that the Town may not exercise law enforcement on any land owned by Respondent?
Attorneys for Appellant: Kevin J. Best and Frederick C. Sussman
Attorneys for Respondent: Debra S. Borden and Adrian R. Gardner
Tuesday, October 9, 2018:
AG No. 15 (2017 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Neil Warren Steinhorn
Attorneys for Petitioner: Amanda Arkwright McCarthy and Erin Alanna Risch
Attorneys for Respondent: Richard D. Rosenthal and Lee Jacobsen
No. 17 Michael Pacheco v. State of Maryland
Issue – Criminal Law – In light of Norman v. State, 452 Md. 373 (2017), Robinson v. State, 451 Md. 94 (2017), and Md. Code, Crim. Law § 5-601.1(a), does the smell of burnt marijuana emanating from a parked vehicle that contains a single occupant, plus the observation of suspected marijuana in an amount that is obviously less than ten grams, provide probable cause to arrest the occupant?
Attorney for Petitioner: Eva Schell
Attorney for Respondent: Todd W. Hesel
No. 69 (2017 T.) Mark Armacost v. Reginald J. Davis
Issues – Torts – 1) In a medical negligence case, is it reversible and prejudicial error to instruct the jury using instructions that frame negligence in the context of a “reasonable person”? 2) When a trial court perceives that a civil jury is deadlocked on the third day of deliberations, may the court give a neutral and non-coercive modified Allen charge that neither invades the province of the jury nor favors either party? 3) Does an appellate court abuse its discretion when it reverses a trial court on grounds not raised at trial nor briefed by the appellant?
Attorney for Petitioner: Alison D. Kohler
Attorney for Respondent: J. Jonathan Schraub
Wednesday, October 10, 2018:
AG No. 22 (2017 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Scott A. Conwell
Attorney for Petitioner: Raymond A. Hein
Attorney for Respondent: Booth Marcus Ripke
No. 22 WV DIA Westminster, LLC v. Mayor & Common Council of Westminster
Issues – Local Government – 1) When a local government conducts a quasi-judicial hearing and vote, can it prevent judicial review by recasting its ultimate written decision as legislative in nature? 2) Does the phrase “regardless of zonal classification” in Westminster Code § 164-133B permit use of zonal classification as a guideline? 3) Does Westminster Code §164-188J(1) permit the Council to rely on an informal trend that is not part of “the general plan, the City’s capital improvements program or other applicable City plans and policies”? 4) Is the proper remedy vacatur or outright reversal?
Attorney for Appellant: Andrew Jay Graham
Attorney for Appellee: Elissa D. Levan
No. 19 Malik Small v. State of Maryland
Issue – Criminal Law – Did CSA err in holding that the pretrial identification of Petitioner, which the Court determined to be the product of an impermissibly suggestive procedure, was reliable?
Attorney for Petitioner: Ava Baker
Attorney for Respondent: Virginia S. Hovermill
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 October 10, 2018, the Court will recess until November 2, 2018.
BESSIE M. DECKER