SEPTEMBER TERM 2021 Webcasts
Videos of arguments from earlier term years are available upon request. The Court's archive of oral argument videos covers the period from May 2007 to the present.
June 2022 Oral Arguments
May 2022 Oral Arguments
April 2022 Oral Arguments
March 2022 Oral Arguments
February 2022 Oral Arguments
January 2022 Oral Arguments
December 2021 Oral Arguments
November 2021 Oral Arguments
October 2021 Oral Arguments
September 2021 Oral Arguments
Oral Arguments Archives
September Term 2020 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 protected]. Copies of the recorded audio of the proceedings are available from the Clerk upon request and payment of a $10.00 fee.
| June 2022 Schedule | ||
| Date | Docket # | Title |
| 06-02-2022 | AG No. 7 (2021 T.) | Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Landon Maurice White |
| 06-02-2022 | No. 60 | In re: T.K. Issues – Courts & Judicial Proceedings – 1) As a matter of first impression, under the discretionary language of Md. Code § 3-819(e) of the Courts & Judicial Proceedings (“CJP”) article, which provides that the “court may award custody to the other parent” after sustaining petition allegations against only one parent and before dismissing the case, what standards govern this exercise of discretion and what, if any, process must be afforded to the custodial parent prior to a transfer of full legal and physical custody of the child to the noncustodial parent? 2) When determining whether to transfer custody of a child to a noncustodial parent under CJP §3-819(e) before dismissing the case, does the best-interests-of-the-child standard apply and what facts or factors must the court consider in making a best interests determination? 3) When requested, is a custodial parent entitled to a contested dispositional hearing where they can present evidence concerning whether it is in the child’s best interest to transfer full custody to the noncustodial parent under CJP §3-819(e) or may a juvenile court transfer full of custody of the child based solely on the sustained petition allegations and conflicting proffers? 4) Does In re R.S., 470 Md. 380 (2020), compel a juvenile court, once petition allegations have been sustained against a custodial parent only, to award full custody of a child to the noncustodial parent over the objection and request for custody of the custodial parent and despite the discretionary language in CJP §3-819(e)? 5) Was the evidence sufficient to transfer full custody of T.K. from mother, his custodial parent since birth and throughout the CINA case to his out-of-state, noncustodial father under the findings that mother agreed to and where mother also proffered that she had witnesses available to testify to facts supporting that father was not able to provide proper care to T.K. and that it was not in T.K.’s best interest to be transferred to father’s custody? |
| 06-01-2022 | No. 61 | Everett Smith v. State of Maryland Issue – Criminal Law – In a reported case of first impression, did CSA wrongly hold that the courtroom bailiff’s face mask depicting the ‘thin blue line’ was not inherently prejudicial to Petitioner? |
| 06-01-2022 | No. 51 | Thornton Mellon, LLC, et al. v. Frederick County Sheriff, et al. Issues – Real Property – 1) Do sheriffs who are commanded to enforce writs of possession issued in a tax sale proceeding have the authority to adopt and impose on tax sale purchasers a “Mover Policy,” which policy requires a tax sale purchaser to provide, at the time of the writ of possession, a crew of movers and moving equipment sufficient to remove the prior owner’s personal property that remains inside the property? 2) Do sheriffs who are commanded to enforce writs of possession issued in a tax sale proceeding have the authority to adopt and impose on tax sale purchasers a “Weather Policy,” which policy allows sheriffs to decline to serve a writ of possession during inclement weather? 3) Where the General Assembly has codified statutes governing the eviction process in tax sale proceedings, do sheriffs have the “fairly-implied power” to enact their own policies concerning the eviction process? 4) Did CSA err in holding that there was no genuine dispute of material fact regarding the content of the policies adopted by sheriffs? |
| 06-01-2022 | No. 54 | Robert Rainey v. State of Maryland Issues – Criminal Law – 1) As a matter of first impression, can a suspect’s change in appearance (in this case, a change in hairstyle) at some point between the time of the crime and the time of his arrest, support a destruction-of-evidence jury instruction? 2) Under the four-inference test adopted in Thompson v. State, 393 Md. 291 (2006), consciousness-of-guilt jury instructions may not be given unless evidence supports all four of the necessary inferences. As a matter of first impression, is a trial judge required to consider the four inferences on the record before giving a consciousness-of-guilt jury instruction, here a destruction-of-evidence instruction? 3) Even if the trial court is not required to state its reasoning regarding the four inferences on the record: (a) was it improper to give the instruction in this case where the evidence did not support the four inferences because petitioner had not been charged or arrested at the time of his haircut and there was no evidence that he was aware that he was the subject of an investigation, and (b) is reversal required where there is no indication in the record that the trial court considered the four Thompson inferences? 4) Did CSA err in holding that although “it is preferable, in all cases in which a defendant has allegedly changed his appearance in order to avoid identification, to employ a custom instruction that focuses on the change of appearance as potential evidence of consciousness of guilt,” the giving of the destruction-of-evidence instruction was harmless in this case because a different modified instruction that does not include the language “You have heard evidence that the defendant destroyed evidence” could have been given but was not? 5) Was giving the destruction-of-evidence jury instruction harmless error where the pattern instruction was not modified, the prosecutor relied on the instruction in closing argument, the jury asked multiple questions during deliberations regarding changes in Petitioner’s appearance, and significant evidence pointed to the guilt of another party? |
| May 2022 Schedule | ||
| Date | Docket # | Title |
| 05-10-2022 | AG No. 72 (2020 T.) | Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Amber Lisa Maiden |
| 05-10-2022 | No. 55 | The Town of Upper Marlboro v. The Prince George's County Council Issues – Land Use – 1) Was CR-72-2019 a final appealable decision that had to be challenged within 30 days of finality as required by Md. Code § 22-407 of the Land Use Article? 2) Was Petitioner’s appeal of CR-98-2019 sufficient to challenge the deficiencies in CR-72-2019? 3) Was the decision of the County Council sitting as the District Council deficient in setting for the purpose and scope of the minor amendment in the initiating resolution (CR-72-2019) as required by Section 27-642 of the Prince George’s County Code? |
| 05-10-2022 | No. 52 | Pedro Steven Buarque De Macedo, et al. v. The Automobile Insurance Company of Hartford, Connecticut Issue – Courts & Judicial Proceedings – Does Md. Code § 5-806 of the Courts & Judicial Proceedings Article render the household exclusion clause in an umbrella policy void, up to the limits of motor vehicle liability coverage, as to motor vehicle personal injury or wrongful death claims of unemancipated children or estates of such children against their parent? |
| 05-09-2022 | No. 62 | Roger Johann Garcia v. State of Maryland Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Is it legally possible to be an accessory before the fact to non-premeditated intent to kill murder? 2) Must a conviction be vacated if the jury considered a legally impossible theory of liability? |
| 05-09-2022 | No. 53 | Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Inc., et al. v. CREG Westport I, LLC, et al. Issues – Environmental Law – 1) Do the provisions of the Forest Conservation Act require an opportunity for direct appeal of an approved forest conservation plan? 2) Does the approval of a forest conservation plan constitute a final agency action subject to judicial review? |
| 05-09-2022 | No. 57 | Andrea Jo Hancock, et al. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, et al. Issues – Torts – 1) Does an employer’s duty to exercise reasonable care in hiring an independent contractor extend to employees of the independent contractor? 2) When a contractor recognizes dangerous job site conditions, does the contractor owe a duty to employees of a co-contractor to identify, warn against, or mitigate the hazard? |
| 05-05-2022 | No. 59 | Luis Felepe Huggins v. State of Maryland Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Did CSA err by raising and deciding, on its own initiative, that Petitioner waived his objection to the denial of his motion to suppress where the State did not argue waiver on appeal? 2) If a pretrial motion to suppress is heard and denied and at trial when the evidence is offered by the State defense counsel says “no objection,” does counsel’s statement constitute a waiver, so that the issue is not preserved for review? |
| 05-05-2022 | No. 58 | William Madison v. The CopyCat Building, LLC Issue – Real Property – Did the trial court err in construcing Md. Code § 8-208(a) and § 8-402(c) of the Real Property Article to find that the term for a tenant living in an unlicensed dwelling without a written lease as one year that becomes month-to-month when the tenant accepted the landlord’s written offer to renew her tenancy for an additional year and the landlord, in violation of § 8-208(a), did not provide the tenant with a written lease after the expiration of the year term? |
| April 2022 Schedule | ||
| Date | Docket # | Title |
| 04-13-2022 | Misc. No. 25 | Petition of Mark N. Fisher, Nicholaus R. Kipke, and Kathryn Szeliga In the Matter of the 2022 Legislative Districting of the State of Maryland |
| 04-13-2022 | Misc. No. 26 | Petition of Brenda Thiam, Wayne Hartman, and Patricia Shoemaker In the Matter of the 2022 Legislative Districting of the State of Maryland |
| 04-13-2022 | Misc. No. 27 | Petition of Seth Edward Wilson In the Matter of the 2022 Legislative Districting of the State of Maryland |
| 04-05-2022 | No. 49 | Irwin Industrial Tool Company v. Christine Pifer, et al. Issues – Evidence – 1) Did CSA err in reversing the authenticity threshold applied by the trial court for the admissibility of items purchased from the internet? 2) Did CSA err in ignoring the alternative grounds for summary judgment encompassed in the trial court’s order? |
| 04-05-2022 | No. 50 | Christopher W. Mee, et al. v. Robert Peterson, et al. Issue – Courts & Judicial Proceedings – Did CSA err in its interpretation of Md. Code §5-109(a) of the Courts & Judicial Proceedings Article (“CJP”), as interpreted by this Court’s decision in Anderson v. United States of America, 427 Md. 99, 46 A.3d 426 (2012), which held that CJP § 5-109 is a statute of limitations in its entirety, not a statute of repose, and that the triggering period for limitations is when the victim of an alleged medical malpractice sustained cognizable legal harm, not a subclinical medical condition that has caused no apparent injury or concern and that would not have triggered any investigation until a much later time period? |
| 04-04-2022 | AG No. 69 (Sept. Term, 2020) | Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Mark David Wemple |
| 04-04-2022 | No. 48 | Administrative Office of the Courts v. Abell Foundation Issue – Maryland Rules – Did CSA misinterpret the administrative-record exemption of Maryland Rule 16-905(f)(3)(B)(i), which directs a custodian of judicial records to deny inspection of an administrative record “prepared by or for a judge” that is “purely administrative in nature but not a local rule, policy, or directive” and is “not filed with the clerk and not required to be filed with the clerk,” when CSA concluded that the exemption did not apply to a mainframe edit table correlating each District Court judge with an alphanumeric code and ordered disclosure of the mainframe edit table? |
| 04-04-2022 | No. 47 | CX Reinsurance Company Limited and Libertual Mutual Mid-Atlantic Insurance Company v. Devon S. Johnson, et al. Issues – Insurance Law – 1) Did CSA err in refusing to interpret insurance policies like other contracts, concluding that “sound public policy dictates that liability insurance policies should be construed to protect injured tort claimants” notwithstanding their terms? 2) Did CSA err in holding that all claimants who have asserted or will assert claims are intended beneficiaries of insurance policies, with vested interests in those policies from the date of their alleged injuries, and have the same rights under those policies as claimants who have obtained judgments or entered into settlements? 3) Did CSA err in holding that an insured and its insurer cannot resolve litigation by entering a settlement, in good faith, that modifies or reduces insurance coverage without the consent of all current and future tort claimants? |
| March 2022 Schedule | ||
| Date | Docket # | Title |
| 03-08-2022 | No. 42 | Terence Williams v. Dimensions Health Corporation Issues – Torts – 1) Does Maryland law require “direct testimony” of Petitioner’s subjective belief that hospitals employ physicians through whom hospitals provide medical services in order to establish apparent agency, or can other testimonial and documentary evidence establish this element of apparent agency by inference? 2) Did the trial court err in granting the hospital’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and did CSA err in affirming this judgment? |
| 03-08-2022 | AG No. 1 (2020 T.) | Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Diedra Nicole Proctor |
| 03-07-2022 | No. 43 | Bennett Frankel v. Casey Lou Deane Issues – Torts – 1) Did CSA err by failing to remand a medical malpractice case for application of the new Daubert evidentiary standard when considering the admissibility of expert testimony regarding the reliability of neurosensory testing and medical expert inferences of injury and medical negligence resulting therefrom, and instead concluding that Daubert was not invoked and remanding with instruction for a full trial on the merits? 2) Alternatively, did CSA err by holding that the trial court abused its discretion by precluding the expert testimony? |
| 03-07-2022 | No. 44 | Patrick Spevak v. Montgomery County Issue – Labor & Employment – 1) Does CSA’s holding – that when an employee who is subject to the provisions of Maryland Code § 9-610 of the Labor & Employment Article (“LE”) receives a service-connected total disability retirement from his or her employer, the offset provision applies to any permanent total or permanent partial workers’ compensation benefits the employee is awarded for injuries or diseases related to that same employment – contradict this Court’s holding in Reger v. Washington Cty. Bd. of Education, 455 Md. 68 (2017) and similar cases, which held that the term “similar” in the statute means that the benefits arose from the “same injury” as opposed to the “same employment”? |
| 03-04-2022 | AG No. 57 (2020 T.) | Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Clifford Baer Silbiger |
| 03-04-2022 | Misc. No. 11 | Alison Assanah-Carroll v. Law Offices of Edward J. Maher, P.C. Certified Question from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland Questions: (1) Can a tenant who paid rent to a landlord in Baltimore City who lacked a license pursuant to Baltimore City Code, Art. 13 § 5-4 maintain a lawsuit under either the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act (the “MCDCA”) or the Maryland Consumer Protection Act (the “MCPA”) to recover the rent paid without a showing of any damages separate from the rental payment itself? (2) Does a currently licensed landlord violate either the MCDCA or the MCPA by collecting rent from a tenant or pursuing the ejectment actions against a tenant who has failed to pay rent during a prior period when the landlord, or a prior landlord, was not licensed under Baltimore City Code, Art. 13 § 5-4, where the tenant does not allege any damages separate from the rental payment itself? |
| 03-04-2022 | No. 63 | Prince George's County v. Robert E. Thurston, et al. Issue – Local Codes – Is a Resolution, having the force and effect of law, a valid measure to adopt a decennial County Council Redistricting Plan? |
| 03-03-2022 | No. 28 | Thornton Mellon, LLC v. Adrianne Dennis Exempt Trust Issues – Tax-Property – 1) Can “impeded redemption,” a doctrine created by the trial court and upheld by the CSA, be employed in tax sale cases as a basis to dismiss timely-filed complaints to foreclose rights of redemption and deny statutory attorneys’ fees where Md. Code § 14-829 of the Tax-Property (“TP”) Article specifically provides a redemption procedure when the amount in redemption is in dispute after a complaint is filed? 2) Can a property owner who fails to redeem a property for six months after a tax sale avoid owing additional statutory attorneys’ fees under the impeded redemption doctrine without proving they had the ability to redeem the property prior to the filing of the complaint to foreclose right of redemptions? 3) Is a tax sale purchaser, after waiting the requisite six months after a tax sale, required to delay filing a complaint to foreclose right of redemption if the owner of the property states an intent to redeem the property? 4) Can a tax sale purchaser be deemed to have filed a complaint to foreclose right of redemption “prematurely” if the complaint is filed more than the requisite six months after the tax sale? 5) Was CSA correct to find that the trial court committed no errors in dismissing Petitioner’s complaint and denying its requests for attorneys’ fees based on the impeded redemption doctrine, where Respondent failed to attempt to redeem the property in accordance with TP § 14-829, conceded that she was aware of her ability to redeem the property minutes after paying fees to Petitioner, and otherwise did not provide any evidence of her ability to redeem prior to Petitioner filing its complaint? 6) Was CSA correct to find that the trial court acted within its discretion in denying Petitioner’s motions for extraordinary attorneys’ fees, when the trial court did not review the requests for fees on the merits and denied them solely on the basis that they flowed from Petitioner’s “premature” complaint? |
| 03-03-2022 | No. 45 | Dawnta Harris v. State of Maryland Issues – Criminal Law – 1) As a matter of first impression, is a common law felony murder an unintended homicide that, if perpetrated by the operation of a motor vehicle, has been preempted by the manslaughter by automobile statute, thereby precluding the common law offense from serving as a basis for a crime in Maryland? 2) Did CSA err in holding that a juvenile offender who is convicted of felony murder, and who is sentenced to a term of life with the possibility of parole, is not entitled to a constitutionally-heightened sentencing procedure to include consideration of the juvenile’s youth, the attendant circumstances, and penological justifications for a life sentence upon a juvenile for an unintentional killing? |
| 03-03-2022 | No. 46 | Anthony J. Richardson v. State of Maryland Issues – Criminal Procedure – 1) Did CSA err in affirming the trial court’s denial of a motion to suppress the fruits of a warrantless search after concluding that the Petitioner had abandoned the property, i.e., a backpack, when both Petitioner and a police officer reached for the property at the same time, and when the police officer picked up the property first, Petitioner ran away? 2) Did CSA err in affirming the trial court’s denial of a motion to suppress the search of a cell phone found in the backpack pursuant to a search warrant based on its conclusion that the warrant satisfied the particularity requirement or, in the alternative, that the officers relied on the search warrant in good faith? |
| February 2022 Schedule | ||
| Date | Docket # | Title |
| 02-08-2022 | No. 29 | Lee Boyd Malvo v. State of Maryland Issues – Constitutional Law – 1) Under Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), which barred life without parole “for all but the rarest of juvenile offenders, those whose crimes reflect permanent incorrigibility,” Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S.Ct. 718, 734 (2016), do the six life without parole sentences imposed on Petitioner violate the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and/or Article 25 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights? 2) Does Miller apply to Maryland’s sentencing scheme, which gives the sentencing court discretion to impose life without parole? 3) Did the sentencing court violate Miller by failing to consider Petitioner’s youth and imposing life without parole for crimes which did not reflect permanent incorrigibility? 4) Did the sentencing court violate Article 25 by imposing life without parole without finding beyond a reasonable doubt that Petitioner was permanently incorrigible? 5) Does Article 25 categorically bar life without parole sentences for juveniles? 6) Did the trial court err in ruling that the life without parole sentences imposed on Petitioner are not “illegal” under Maryland Rule 4-345(a)? |
| 02-08-2022 | No. 41 | Alexander Dejarnette v. State of Maryland Issues – Courts & Judicial Proceedings – 1) Where Petitioner challenged the admissibility of a breath test on the grounds that the police failed to sufficiently observe him for the requisite period preceding the test, does the failure to comply with the observation period go to the admissibility of the breath test results rather than their weight? 2) Does the statutory and regulatory scheme necessitate excluding breath tests where the police fail to comply with the observation period? 3) Do principles of evidentiary law – and overwhelming out-of-state authority – necessitate excluding breath tests where the police fail to comply with the observation period? 4) Did CSA err in holding that the officers’ testimony supported a finding of compliance with the observation period? 5) Did CSA err in holding that the argument – that the trial court failed to make any finding regarding compliance – was not preserved and also failed on the merits? |
| 02-08-2022 | No. 40 | Scott Wadsworth, et al. v. Poornima Sharma, et al. Issue – Courts & Judicial Proceedings – 1) Does Maryland’s Wrongful Death Statute, specifically, § 3-902(a) of the Courts & Judicial Proceedings Article, permit wrongful death beneficiaries to recover from a health care provider where the actions of the heath care provider shortened the terminally ill decedent’s life? |
| 02-07-2022 | No. 32 | Daniel Jay Gross v. State of Maryland Issue – Criminal Law – 1) Under Dorsey v. State, 276 Md. 638 (1975), did CSA err when it reviewed for harmless error and only analyzed the evidence put forth by the State when the Petitioner controverted the evidence at trial through multiple witnesses, including experts? 2) Under Dorsey, did CSA err when it analyzed an improperly admitted prior consistent statement for its cumulativeness since, although prior consistent statements are cumulative, it is their consistency that is the very nature of the harm? 3) Did CSA err in relying on State v. Lawson, 389 Md. 570 (2005), when it held that the social worker and doctor who gave hearsay testimony under Maryland Code § 11-304 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article “fell within the category of person contemplated by the statute” since Lawson merely affirmed the use of social worker hearsay testimony where the worker was “informed of the abuse by police officers” and here there was evidence that both witnesses were directed by law enforcement to act thus, for the purposes of the interview, the social worker and doctor were outside “the course of the person’s profession?” 4) Did CSA wrongly conclude the June 2015 video was not admissible under the prompt complaint exception to the hearsay rule? |
| 02-07-2022 | No. 39 | Karunaker Aleti, et ux. v. Metropolitan Baltimore, LLC and Gables Residential Services, Inc. Issues – Municipal Codes – 1) Does Article 13, § 5.4(a)(2) of the Baltimore City Code create an implied private right of action to recover a return of rent that a landlord was prohibited from collecting or retaining? 2) Is the money had and received cause of action available to a tenant to recover a return of rent that a landlord was prohibited from collecting or retaining by operation of § 5.4(a)(2)? 3) Is the breach of contract cause of action available to a tenant when a landlord agrees to abide by § 5.4(a)(2) and not accept, collect, or retain rent if the property is not licensed, but then collects, accepts, and retains rent in violation of § 5.4(a)2)? |
| 02-07-2022 | No. 37 | Nicholas Jabbar Williams v. State of Maryland Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Did CSA err in finding the verdict was not impermissibly inconsistent? 2) In what circumstances does the no-impeachment rule set forth in Maryland Rule 5-606(b) yield to a defendant’s constitutional rights and a jury’s true verdict? 3) Did CSA err in holding there was sufficient evidence to convict Petitioner of second-degree murder and possession of a firearm by a person younger than twenty-one? |
| 02-03-2022 | No. 35 | Mashour Howling v. State of Maryland Issues – Criminal Law – 1) In a question of first impression, did the trial court err by giving a jury instruction that omitted a scienter requirement for the offenses charged, contrary to the holding of Rehaif v. United States, 139 S.Ct. 2191 (2019), on the presumptions in law in the equivalent Federal Statute, the Rule of Lenity, and this Court’s decisions in Dawkins v. State, 313 Md. 638 (1988) and Chow v. State, 391 Md. 431 (2006)? 2) Under the facts of this case, in which no evidence was adduced that Petitioner was previously notified by government authorities that he was prohibited from possessing a regulated firearm in Maryland, did the trial court err in giving the pre- Rehaif pattern jury instructions lacking scienter requirements? |
| 02-03-2022 | No. 36 | Funiba Abongnelah v. State of Maryland Issues - Criminal Law – 1) In a matter of first impression, did CSA err by holding that the evidence was sufficient to convict Petitioner of illegally possessing a regulated firearm where the State failed to prove he had knowledge of his prohibited status – i.e., that he was a convicted felon – because that result was inconsistent with the U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretation of the analogous Federal statute in Rehaif v. United States, 139 S.Ct. 2191 (2019), and was at odds with this Court’s precedent? 2) Did CSA err by upholding the trial court’s refusal to instruct the jury that the State was required to prove that Petitioner had knowledge of his prohibited status? 3) Was the knowledge issue raised herein adequately preserved where both trial and appellate counsel argued that Rehaif required knowledge of prohibited status and appellate counsel clarified in Appellant’s Reply Brief that prohibited status meant Petitioner’s status as a felon? |
| 02-03-2022 | No. 38 | Anne Arundel County, Maryland v. 808 Bestgate Realty, LLC Issues – Local Codes -- 1) Is CSA’s interpretation of § 17-11-207 of the Anne Arundel County Code in conflict with the County Charter and the County budget process as it relates to the funding of public improvements? 2) Did the Court of Special Appeals abuse its discretion under Maryland Rule 8-131(a) in requiring remand on an issue not raised or briefed by the parties nor mentioned in the agency order under appeal, and not in dispute? |
| January 2022 Schedule | ||
| Due to the COVID-19 emergency, these oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference. | ||
| Date | Docket # | Title |
| 01-11-2022 | No. 30 | Seth D. Jedlicka v. State of Maryland Issues – Constitutional Law – 1) How should a sentencing court evaluate where on the McCullough “spectrum,” Carter v. State, 461 Md. 295 (2018), a juvenile offender falls, and how does that analysis determine what term-of-years sentence or period of parole ineligibility is too long to comport with the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and U.S. Supreme Court precedent in Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 60 (2012), and Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S.Ct. 718 (2016)? 2) As to juvenile offenders, does the statute, Md. Code § 7-301(d)(2) of the Correctional Services Article, prescribing a mandatory 25 years of parole ineligibility in every case where the State seeks life without parole, violate the Equal Protection Clause and/or the Eighth Amendment? 3) What is the scope of the individualized sentencing requirement for juveniles who have committed homicide and did the lower court err in upholding Petitioner’s concurrent 60 year aggregate term and life suspend all but 60 years sentences, imposed without an individualized sentencing proceeding? 4) Due to a concern that juveniles will be forced to serve disproportionate sentences, should this Court recognize a substantive right for non-incorrigible juveniles to be released, as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in Miller and Montgomery interpreting the Eighth Amendment? 5) Did the lower court err in finding that a life sentence in Maryland is not the functional equivalent of life without parole, even though the structure of the Maryland parole system allows offenders to be diverted from parole to clemency? |
| 01-11-2022 | AG No. 6 (2020 T.) | Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Natalie Thryphenia Collins |
| 01-11-2022 | No. 26 | Kenyatta M. Smith v. State of Maryland Issues – Criminal Law – 1) When a petitioner satisfies the substantive requirements for receiving coram nobis relief – i.e., they have exhausted all other available remedies, have proven that the convictions they are challenging suffer from constitutional or other fundamental error, and have established that the challenged convictions create a significant collateral consequence – to what extent does the petitioner still need to show that there are “compelling circumstances” warranting relief? 2) Where Petitioner met the established prerequisites for obtaining coram nobis relief, did the circuit court err in ruling that, under dicta in Coleman v. State, 219 Md.App. 339 (2014), there are not “compelling circumstances” to vacate Petitioner’s convictions because, inter alia, the legislative purpose behind the creation of Petitioner’s significant collateral consequence (i.e., her inability to obtain a license as a mortgage originator) takes precedence? |
| 01-10-2022 | AG No. 103 (2020 T.) | In the Matter of the Petition For Reinstatement of Raj Sanjeet Singh to the Bar of Maryland |
| 01-06-2022 | No. 27 | In Re: D.D. Issue – Criminal Law – 1) Does the scent of marijuana provide reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop to determine if someone possesses a criminal amount of marijuana or could be cited for civil violations of marijuana laws? 2) Assuming, arguendo, that the stop was constitutional, was the frisk unlawful because the police lacked reasonable suspicion to believe that Respondent was armed and dangerous? |
| 01-06-2022 | No. 34 | Brandon Gambrill, et al. v. Board of Education of Dorchester County, et al. Issues – Courts & Judicial Proceedings – 1) Does the federal Coverdell Act, 20 U.S.C. § 7941, et seq., preempt Maryland law and apply to preclude any liability on the part of either school personnel or boards of education in connection with the negligence of teachers and school administrators? 2) Did the federal Coverdell Act shield the individual Respondents from liability for their negligent actions where the Respondents failed to introduce any evidence at all that Maryland accepts the prerequisite federal funding required for the Coverdell Act to apply? |
| 01-06-2022 | No. 31 | Michael Farmer v. State of Maryland Issues – Constitutional Law – 1) As part of a juvenile lifer’s constitutional right to a meaningful opportunity to obtain release based upon demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation, as recognized in Carter v. State, 461 Md. 295 (2018), does a juvenile lifer have a federal constitutional right to state-furnished counsel in proceedings before the Maryland Parole Commission? 2) As part of a juvenile lifer’s constitutional right to a meaningful opportunity to obtain release based upon demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation, as recognized in Carter, does a juvenile lifer have a Maryland constitutional right to state-furnished counsel in proceedings before the Maryland Parole Commission? 3) Assuming a juvenile lifer has a constitutional right to state-furnished counsel in proceedings before the Maryland Parole Commission, does that Maryland Parole system allow for the effective exercise of that right? 4) Is Petitioner’s sentence illegal pursuant to Maryland Rule 4-345(a)? |
| December 2021 Schedule | ||
| Date | Docket # | Title |
| 12-07-2021 | No. 16 | Daniel Beckwitt v. State of Maryland Issues – Criminal Law – 1) As a matter of first impression, was the evidence legally sufficient to permit a rational trier of fact to find that Petitioner was guilty of involuntary manslaughter beyond a reasonable doubt for permitting the victim to work in a home with hoarding conditions accompanied by power outages? 2) As a matter of first impression, is legal duty manslaughter a type of gross negligence manslaughter that serves as a lesser-included offense of depraved-heart murder, thereby requiring review of Petitioner’s challenges to the legal duty manslaughter conviction? 3) Did the trial court commit reversible error by failing to instruct the essential elements of legal duty manslaughter, for which there is no pattern jury instruction? 4) As a matter of first impression, did the trial court lack subject matter jurisdiction to enter a conviction against an occupant of a home on a common law involuntary manslaughter charge resulting from an accidental house fire? 5) As a matter of first impression, does the line separating second-degree depraved heart murder and gross negligence manslaughter depend upon the likelihood of death and, if so, was the evidence sufficient in this case to support the jury’s verdict of second-degree murder? |
| 12-07-2021 | No. 25 | Maryland Small MS4 Coalition, et al. v. Maryland Department of the Environment Issues – Environmental Law – 1) Has Maryland Department of the Environment (“MDE”) unlawfully made the Queen Anne’s County (“County”) responsible for the discharges from independent third parties and nonpoint source runoff that do not discharge from the County’s MS4? 3) Has MDE unlawfully imposed requirements beyond the maximum extent practicable in the General Permit? |
| 12-06-2021 | No. 23 | State of Maryland v. Latoya Jordan Issue – Criminal Law – Is it harmless error to fail to propound a voir dire question regarding a defendant’s right to remain silent and not testify where the defendant actually testifies? |
| 12-06-2021 | AG No. 41 (2020 T.) | Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Lawrence Daniel O'Neill |
| 12-06-2021 | Misc. No. 6 | Nagle & Zaller, P.C., et al. v. Jahmal E. Delegall, et al. Certified Question from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland Question: The Maryland Consumer Loan Law, Md. Code Ann., Commercial Law §§12-301, et seq., applies to consumer "loans" made by "lenders," and requires a "person engaged in the business of making loans" to be licensed. Based upon the allegations in the Third Amended Complaint, is Nagle & Zaller, P.C. subject to the statute?? |
| 12-03-2021 | Misc. No. 5 | Jesse J. Murphy, et al. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. Certified Question from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland Question: Did the Court of Appeals act within its enabling authority under, inter alia, the State Constitution and the State Declaration of Rights when its April 24, 2020 Administrative Order tolled Maryland's statutes of limitation in response to the COVID-19 pandemic? |
| 12-03-2021 | No. 24 | Arthur Becker v. Falls Road Community Association, et al. Issue – Zoning & Planning – In order for collateral estoppel to bar a subsequently filed development plan, must the two plans be found to be identical? |
| 12-02-2021 | No. 22 | Brigido Lopez-Villa v. State of Maryland Issues – Criminal Law – Where Petitioner submitted a written request for said voir dire questions and the trial court “reviewed” the questions and ruled that it was “not inclined to ask” them “because the Court will instruct on those areas of law,” did CSA err in holding that Petitioner “failed to preserve his objection to the court’s refusal to read his proposed voir dire questions,” because he “failed to ask or tell the court that he objected to the failure to ask those specific questions,” and because when, at the end of voir dire, the trial court inquired, “[d]id I miss any questions…what you previously objected to, which I will preserve for the record,” counsel responded “no”? |
| 12-02-2021 | AG No. 17 (2020 T.) | Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Robin Keith Annesley Ficker |
| 12-02-2021 | Misc. No. 7 | Joel Adam Dickson v. United States of America Certified Question from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Question: Under Maryland Law, can an individual be convicted of robbery by means of threatening force against property or threatening to accuse the victim of having committed sodomy? |
| November 2021 Schedule | ||
| Due to the COVID-19 emergency, these oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference. | ||
| Date | Docket # | Title |
| 11-09-2021 | No. 21 | Amit Kumar v. State of Maryland Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Does the holding of Kazadi v. State, 467 Md. 1 (2020), apply to all litigants who preserved the issue and whose cases were not yet final when the Kazadi opinion was issued, regardless of whether they had filed a notice of appeal by that date? 2) Did CSA violate Petitioner’s constitutional right to equal protection by applying different law to Petitioner’s case as compared to other similarly situated litigants? |
| 11-09-2021 | No. 18 | Traci Spiegel, et al. v. Board of Education of Howard County Issues – Education – 1) Does the Maryland Constitution prevent minors 11 years of age and older from selecting a member holding a binding voting position on the Howard County Board of Education, whether by election, appointment, or any other means? 2) Does the Maryland Constitution prevent minors from holding the office of a binding voting position on the Board of Education of Howard County, a board which possesses general governmental power? |
| 11-09-2021 | No. 20 | Linda A. Sanders v. Board of Education of Harford County, et al. Issue – Workers’ Compensation – Is a denial of a Request to Reopen/Modify filed with the Worker’s Compensation Commission pursuant to Md. Code § 9-736(b) of the Labor & Employment Article subject to judicial review? |
| 11-08-2021 | AG No. 51 (2020 T.) | Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Keith M. Bonner |
| 11-08-2021 | No. 14 | Mario Ernesto Amaya, et al. v. DGS Construction, LLC, et al. Issues – Labor & Employment – 1) Do the Maryland Wage and Hour Law (“MWHL”), Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law (“MWPCL”), and COMAR adopt and incorporate the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), federal Portal-to-Portal Act (“PPA”), and Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”) sections where the Maryland statutes, regulations, and legislative history never adopted or incorporated them? 2) Is the definition of “work” under the MWHL, MWPCL, and COMAR limited to what is considered “compensable work” under the PPA, despite the Maryland General Assembly and regulators never incorporating the federal laws or otherwise saying so? 3) Does a “worksite” or “prescribed workplace” under COMAR 09.12.41.10 include a location that an employer directs its employees to report? 4) Did CSA err in importing the federal PPA compensability requirements in determining whether a benefit was conferred on Respondents for the purpose of proving a Maryland common law unjust enrichment claim, especially when Respondents failed to move for judgment on that claim? |
| 11-08-2021 | No. 17 | Juan Carlos Terrones Rojas, et al. v. F.R. General Contractors, Inc., et al. Issues – Labor & Employment – 1) Do the Maryland Wage and Hour Law (“MWHL”), Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law (“MWPCL”), and COMAR adopt and incorporate the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), federal Portal-to-Portal Act (“PPA”), and Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”) sections where the Maryland statutes, regulations, and legislative history never adopted or incorporated them? 2) Is the definition of “work” under the MWHL, MWPCL, and COMAR limited to what is considered “compensable work” under the PPA, despite the Maryland General Assembly and regulators never incorporating the federal laws or otherwise saying so? 3) Does a “worksite” or “prescribed workplace” under COMAR 09.12.41.10 include a location that an employer directs its employees to report? |
| 11-01-2021 | No. 13 | Marlon Koushall v. State of Maryland Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Where a conviction for misconduct in office is based on the corrupt doing of an unlawful act, does the conviction for the “unlawful act” merge with the conviction for misconduct in office for sentencing purposes? 2) Was there sufficient evidence to support Petitioner’s convictions for assault in the second degree and misconduct in office? |
| 11-01-2021 | No. 19 | Broadway Services, Inc. v. Comptroller of Maryland Issues – Tax-General – 1) Where tangible personal property is purchased by an intermediary contractor for the use of a non-profit charitable institution in carrying on its exempt purpose, are those purchases exempt from Maryland sales and use tax in light of John McShain, Inc. v. Comptroller, 252 Md. 68 (1953) under Md. Code § 11-204 of the Tax-General Article? 2) Were the Maryland Tax Court’s factual findings supported by substantial evidence such that the purchases in question are exempt from Maryland sales and use tax? |
| 11-01-2021 | No. 15 | State of Maryland v. Kirk Matthews Issue – Criminal Law – Did CSA err by holding that an expert witness created an “analytical gap,” and thus rendered her testimony inadmissible as a matter of law, by acknowledging the limitations of her scientific methodology? |
| October 2021 Schedule | ||
| Due to the COVID-19 emergency, these oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference. | ||
| Date | Docket # | Title |
| 10-08-2021 | No. 7 | Park Plus, Inc. v. Palisades of Towson, LLC and Encore Development Corp. Issues – Civil Procedure – 1) Did CSA err in affirming the order compelling arbitration and ignoring the principles set forth in Shailendra Kumar, P.A. v. Anand M. Dhanda, 426 Md. 185 (2012)? 2) Did CSA err in following Gannett Fleming, Inc. v. Corman Construction, Inc., 243 Md.App. 376 (2019), which limited the application of Kumar to contracts for non-binding arbitration and held that Md. Code § 5-101 of the Courts & Judicial Proceedings Article does not govern claims subject to contractual arbitration? 3) Did the trial court and CSA err by treating a petition to compel arbitration as a “claim” with a separate limitations period, rather than as a remedy that must be properly invoked within the applicable limitations period for the substantive claim? 4) In the alternative, did the trial court err in failing to refer the statute-of-limitations issue to the arbitrator, and thereafter in confirming the arbitral award, even though the arbitrator refused to hear Petitioner’s affirmative defense based on the statue of limitations applicable to Respondent’s claim? |
| 10-08-2021 | Misc. No. 4 | Westfield Insurance Company v. Michael Gilliam Certified Question from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland Question: For purposes of determining the reduction of a plaintiff's underinsured motorist benefits required by Maryland Insurance Code 19-513(e), does Maryland law treat the "write-down," or the difference between medical bills submitted by a workers' compensation claimant's health care provider and the lower amount actually paid by a workers' compensation insurer to satisfy those bills, pursuant to the Maryland Guide of Medical and Surgical Fees, as "recovered benefits" to the plaintiff under the Maryland Workers' Compensation Act? |
| 10-07-2021 | No. 6 | Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. Thornton Mellon, LLC, et al. Issues – Tax-Property – 1) Is a tax sale certificate no longer assignable once a court enters judgment foreclosing the right of redemption? 2) Assuming, arguendo, that a tax sale certificate is assignable after foreclosure, was the purported assignment here nonetheless invalid for failure to comply with provisions of law relating to the short assignment of mortgages? 3) Is a judgment foreclosing the right of redemption non-assignable? 4) Assuming, arguendo, that a foreclosure judgment is assignable, must the assignment be filed and docketed in the circuit court, not merely attached as an exhibit to a motion, before the assignee can enforce the judgment in the assignee’s name? |
| 10-07-2021 | No. 10 | In re: S.F. Issue – Juvenile Law – Is it improper for a juvenile court to make a school’s discretionary decision to suspend a child a violation of the child’s probation? |
| 10-06-2021 | AG No. 47 (2020 T.) | Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Edward Allen Malone |
| 10-06-2021 | No. 12 | Karen Webb v. Giant of Maryland, LLC Issues – Civil Procedure – 1) In reviewing the denial of a motion for summary judgment but not the denial of a motion for judgment under the abuse of discretion standard, did CSA depart from its own precedent in holding that a trial court’s denial of both motions for summary judgment and/or for judgment are reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard? 2) Where the evidence did not change between summary judgment and through trial, did CSA, which upheld the trial court’s denial of a motion for summary judgment on an issue of material fact, then err in reversing the trial court’s ruling denying the motion for judgment addressing the same issue of material fact? 3) Where CSA indicated that there was sufficient evidence to argue that jurors could draw negative inferences from the absence of video footage of the incident, did CSA err both in holding that the trial court’s decision to provide a standard spoliation instruction was an abuse of discretion and in holding that giving the instruction also resulted in probable prejudice? |
| 10-06-2021 | No. 9 | Jason Mercer v. Thomas B. Finan Center Issue – Health-General – Did CSA err by holding that Md. Code § 10-708 of the Health-General Article does not require an Administrative Law Judge to make an on-the-record assessment of whether the Respondent waived his statutory right to counsel? |
| 10-04-2021 | No. 11 | Everette William Johnson v. State of Maryland Issue – Criminal Law – Is a defendant’s right to a unanimous jury verdict violated when the State presents evidence of multiple incidents at trial to prove a single charged count, in the absence of an election between the incidents or a special jury instruction? |
| 10-04-2021 | Misc. No. 3 | Jabari Morese Lyles v. Santander Consumer USA Inc. Certified Question from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland Question: If a credit grantor is found to have knowingly violated Credit Grantor Closed End Credit Provisions ("CLEC"), Maryland Code Annotated, Commercial Law §§12-1001, et seq., does CLEC § 12-1018(b) require the credit grantor to return three times: (1) all amounts collected by the credit grantor in excess of the principal amount financed; (2) only those amounts collected that the borrower contends violate the CLEC (in this case, the convenience fee); or (3) some other amount. |
| 10-04-2021 | No. 8 | Pabst Brewing Company v. Frederick P. Winner, Ltd. Issue – Alcoholic Beverages – When control of a beer brand changes hands through a sale of the stock of a beer manufacturer, is there a “successor beer manufacturer” with the right to terminate a distribution agreement? |
| September 2021 Schedule | ||
| Due to the COVID-19 emergency, these oral arguments were held remotely by videoconference. | ||
| Date | Docket # | Title |
| 09-14-2021 | AG No. 69 (2019 T.) | Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Thereen Dian Daley |
| 09-14-2021 | No. 4 | Eric Antonio Alarcon-Ozoria v. State of Maryland Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Does the State’s obligation to exercise due diligence in identifying and disclosing relevant materials in criminal litigation extend to phone call recordings collected and preserved by the State’s jail facilities? 2) In a criminal case, does a recording of a defendant’s own statement that is not disclosed until the morning of trial constitute an unfair surprise to the defense, such that it requires relief? |
| 09-14-2021 | No. 1 | Anna Velicky v. The CopyCat Building LLC Issues – Real Property – 1) Must a landlord have a rental license to evict a tenant under Md. Code §8-402 of the Real Property Article when local law requires a license to operate the premises as a landlord? 2) Did the trial court err by determining that an appeal from a tenant holding over action should be heard de novo instead of on-the-record when the 2-month value of rent for the premises exceeded the threshold for on-the-record appeals under Md. Rule 7-102(b)? |
| 09-14-2021 | No. 2 | Christopher Walke v. The CopyCat Building LLC Issue – Real Property – Is an unlicensed landlord leasing rental properties in a jurisdiction requiring licensure allowed to judicially enforce its unlicensed activities in Maryland courts? |
| 09-13-2021 | AG No. 9 (2020 T.) | Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Dawn R. Jackson |
| 09-13-2021 | No. 3 | Michael O'Sullivan v. State of Maryland Issues – Criminal Law – 1) In an oath-against-oath perjury case, is the State relieved of its burden of production under the two-witness rule by introducing circumstantial evidence? 2) Was there sufficient evidence that Petitioner/Cross-Respondent committed perjury and misconduct in office? 3) Should the two-witness rule, which provides for a heightened burden of production that is only applicable to the misdemeanor offense of perjury, be prospectively abrogated in favor of the standard burden of production in a criminal case, which requires the State to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and trusts in the ability of the fact-finder to weigh evidence? |
| 09-13-2021 | No. 5 | State of Maryland v. Rony Galicia Issues – Criminal Law – 1) When a statement against penal interest inculpates a third party, but not the defendant, does the trial court abuse its discretion when it does not allow the defendant to elicit evidence about the statement? 2) Is expert testimony required to explain to a fact-finder that a “gap” in the “location history” records for a Google account could have been caused by the account holder turning off the “location history” service? |
| 09-09-2021 | Misc. No. 20 (2020 T.) | In the Matter of the Application of A.D. for Admission to the Bar of Maryland |
| 09-09-2021 | AG No. 31 | Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Joseph Ignatius Cassilly |
| 09-09-2021 | Misc. No. 1 | Paul Moore v. RealPage Utility Management, Inc. Certified Question from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland
|