Supreme Court Webcast Archive 2023 Term

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. 

 

August 2024 Schedule
DateDocket #Title
08-28-2024No. 35Benedict J. Frederick, III, et al. v. Baltimore City Board of Elections, et al.

Direct appeal under Maryland Election Law.
08-28-2024No. 34Baltimore City Board of Elections, et al. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, et al.

Direct appeal under Maryland Election Law.
June 2024 Schedule
DateDocket #Title
06-03-2024Bar Admissions
 
06-03-2024AG No. 47 (2021 T.)Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Stephen E. Whitted
06-03-2024No. 14Thomas Dwayne Cook v. State of Maryland

DNA appeal. 
06-03-2024No. 32

Please note: Due to a technical glitch, there is a section of the recording with no video. 		Christopher Mooney v. State of Maryland

Issue – Criminal Law – Did ACM lower the requirements for authentication of video evidence through the “pictorial testimony theory” where a witness is permitted to authenticate video evidence even when the witness did not see the entirety of the events depicted in it?  
May 2024 Schedule
DateDocket #Title
05-06-2024Bar Admissions
 
05-06-2024No. 30State of Maryland v. Lamont Smith

Issue – Criminal Law – As a matter of first impression, is the “statement against penal interest” evidentiary rule Maryland’s only exception to the rule that a defendant is required to request redaction in order to properly raise a failure-to-redact claim on appeal?  
05-06-2024No. 31Lithko Contracting, LLC, et al. v. XL Insurance America, Inc.

Issues – Insurance Law – 1) Did ACM err where it held that Petitioners were not protected by the waiver of subrogation in the agreement to develop certain property and an exhibit to the agreement? 2) As a matter of first impression, did ACM err where it held that the lessee of the property did not waive subrogation against Petitioners despite requiring the general contractor to include the agreement’s exhibit’s waiver of subrogation in all its subcontracts?  
05-06-2024JD No. 2In the Matter of the Honorable April T. Ademiluyi, Judge of the Circuit Court of Maryland for Prince George's County, 7th Judicial Circuit
April 2024 Schedule
DateDocket #Title
04-09-2024No. 24Darryl Edward Freeman v. State

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”?  
04-09-2024No. 16Adventist HealthCare, Inc. v. Steven S. Behram

Issues – Health Occupations – 1) Did the ACM err by relying on extrinsic evidence in its interpretation of the fully integrated Settlement Agreement without determining whether the Agreement is ambiguous or considering the effect of its integration clause in contravention of settled Maryland law? 2) Did the ACM err by failing to apply standard principles of contract interpretation, by interpreting a Settlement Agreement that expressly releases claims related to three specific events, as unambiguously releasing claims related to other events, and thereby exclude extrinsic evidence that showed that the parties did not intend to release claims related to those other events?  
04-05-2024Bar Admissions 
04-05-2024No. 22Aaron Jarvis v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Law – 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?  
04-05-2024No. 20Roseberline Turenne v. State of Maryland

Issue – Criminal Law – Is the evidence insufficient to sustain the child pornography convictions under Md. Code Criminal Law Article (“CL”) §§ 11-207(a)(1) and -208(b) and child sex abuse convictions under CL § 3-602(b)? (A) What is the appropriate test to determine whether an image constitutes “lascivious exhibition of the genitals” under the child pornography statutes? (B) What role, if any, does evidence of possession of adult pornography play in assessing the sufficiency of the evidence?  
March 2024 Schedule
DateDocket #Title
03-05-2024No. 23

Please note: These oral arguments were held at St. Mary’s College of Maryland in St. Mary’s City, MD.		Antonio E. Gonzalez v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Law – 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?  
03-05-2024No. 25

Please note: These oral arguments were held at St. Mary’s College of Maryland in St. Mary’s City, MD.		Madelyn Bennett, Individually and as Successor Trustee of The Pauline A. Bennett Revocable Living Trust v. Thomas A. Gentile

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?  
03-01-2024Bar Admissions 
03-01-2024No. 27Town of Bel Air v. Bodt

Issues – Local Government – 1) Does the Express Powers Act, Md. Code § 5-213 of the Local Government Article, require a municipality to adopt an ordinance, rather than a resolution, when the municipality denies a petition for referendum for failure to comply with the requirements of the municipal charter? 2) Does Gray v. Howard County Bd. Of Elections, 218 Md.App. 654 (2014) control the procedure for a municipality’s denial of a referendum petition? 3) Are organizers of a petition for referendum prohibited from altering the language of a petition after they have obtained signatures in support of the petition? 4) Where a municipal charter is silent regarding whether a petition for referendum may challenge only part of an ordinance, must a petition for referendum challenge the entire ordinance?  
February 2024 Schedule
DateDocket #Title
02-06-2024No. 19Valerie Rovin v. State of Maryland

Issues – Constitutional Law – 1) Did ACM err in concluding that the “objectively reasonable” mistake of law test articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Heien v. North Carolina, 574 U.S. 54 (2014), applies to civil constitutional tort claims arising under the Maryland Constitution, including Article 26 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights? 2) Did ACM err in concluding that the “objectively reasonable” mistake of law test articulated in Heien applies to claims arising under Maryland’s common law, such as for false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution? 3) Did ACM err in determining that the officers in Petitioner’s case made an objectively reasonable mistake-of-law in arresting, imprisoning, and prosecuting her and that, as a result, Petitioner’s claims failed as a matter of law? 4) Did ACM err in determining that the juror intimidation statute in Md. Code Criminal Law Article § 9-305(a) was not unconstitutionally vague, in violation of the due process protections guaranteed by Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights? 5) Did ACM err in determining that Petitioner’s free speech rights under Article 40 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights were not violated? 6) Was the warrant issued for Petitioner’s arrest invalid based on the contents of the warrant affidavit, which show no crime was committed?  
02-06-2024No. 21Troy Mason v. State of Maryland

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Did ACM err in ruling that a mistrial was not required simply by virtue of the inadvertent nature of the discovery error? 2) Is “error correction” a legitimate reason to allow previously undisclosed evidence into trial, thereby excusing a discovery violation, where the new evidence contradicts information disclosed during discovery and previously relied on by the defense at trial? 3) Did the courts below abuse their discretion by finding no prejudice warranting a mistrial or curative instruction, where during discovery the State produced a blank Strangulation Supplement documenting no injuries to the complaining witness that was relied on by defense counsel at trial, and where surprise testimony revealed that the disclosed Supplement was erroneous and that the original Strangulation Supplement – which was not produced during discovery – did document injuries?  
02-05-2024Bar Admissions
 
02-05-2024No. 15State of Maryland v. Steven Anthony Thomas

span style="font-style: italic">Issues – Criminal Procedure – 1) Does Maryland Rule 4-345(e), which states that a court “may not revise the sentence after the expiration of five years from the date the sentence originally was imposed,” mean that a court may not revise a sentence under Rule 4-345(e) after the five-year period expires? 2) Where a defendant timely files a motion to modify under Maryland Rule 4-345(e) and repeatedly requests a hearing on the motion, is the trial court required to exercise its discretion within five years, i.e. either deny the motion without a hearing or hold a hearing to determine whether to grant the motion, or does the rule permit the court to let the five years lapse without exercising discretion?  
02-05-2024No. 26Derek Harvey, et al. v. Jared DeMarinis, in his official capacity as the State Administrator of Elections, et al. 
 
January 2024 Schedule
DateDocket #Title
01-08-2024Bar Admissions 
01-08-2024No. 17Doctor's Weight Loss Centers, Inc., et al. v. Shelly Blackston

Issue – Torts – Did ACM utilize the correct standard for determining when a cause of action manifested itself to determine the correct choice of law using the lex loci delicti rule.  
01-08-2024No. 18Bethesda African Cemetery Coalition, et al. v. Housing Opportunities Commission of Montgomery County

Issues – Business Regulations – 1) Did the ACM err in holding that §5-505 of the Business Relations Article of the Md. Code is nothing more than a “quiet title” statute, providing land owners with an optional proceeding that they may choose to institute when selling land containing a burial ground if they wish to convey a “clean” title to the realty? 2) Under Maryland law, does a court of equity need to assess whether (and if so, on what conditions) a property owner can sell land containing a burial ground for non-burial use in view of the 1829 decision of the United States Supreme Court in Beatty v. Kurtz, which (applying Maryland law) charged courts of chancery operating pursuant to their equity powers “to preserve the repose of the ashes of the dead and the religious sensibilities of the living,” as well as subsequent decisions by this Court and other courts?  
December 2023 Schedule
DateDocket #Title
12-05-2023AG No. 53 (2022 T.)Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Vernon Charles Donnelly
 
12-05-2023No. 12Darrell Matthews v. State of Maryland

DNA appeal.
12-04-2023Bar Admissions
 
12-04-2023No. 9Corey 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?  
12-04-2023No. 11In 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
DateDocket #Title
11-06-2023Bar Admissions
 
11-06-2023Misc. No. 1In the Matter of the Application of Ian Patrick Wright for Admission to the Bar of Maryland
 
11-06-2023No. 8Charles 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?  
11-06-2023No. 4Westminster 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?  
11-03-2023No. 6

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?  
11-03-2023No. 10

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
DateDocket #Title
10-02-2023No. 7Adnan 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?  
10-02-2023Bar Admissions
 
10-02-2023Misc. No. 65 (2022 T.)In the Matter of A.C.

 
10-02-2023No. 5Charles 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
DateDocket #Title
09-08-2023Misc. No. 62 (2022 T.)Application of Samuel E. Howie for Admission to the Bar of Maryland

 
09-08-2023No. 2Francois 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?  
09-08-2023No. 3In 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?  
09-07-2023Bar Admissions

 
09-07-2023AG No. 2Petition of Sherwood R. Wescott for Reinstatement to the Bar of Maryland
 
09-07-2023No. 1In 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?