Petitions for Writ of Certiorari - September, 2021

PETITIONS FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

September Term, 2021

 

 

Denied/Dismissed September 13, 2021

Kittle v. Holiday Real Estate - Pet. Docket No. 223

 

 

Granted September 13, 2021

Daniel Jay Gross v. State of Maryland - Case No. 32, September Term, 2021

Issues – 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?

Ruby Potter v. Denise Potter - Case No. 33, September Term, 2021

Issue – Estates & Trusts – Can members of an LLC contract to control the distribution of a member’s interest at death?

Brandon Gambrill, et al. v. Board of Education of Dorchester County, et al. - Case No. 34, September Term, 2021

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?

 

 

Denied/Dismissed September 28, 2021

Aytch, Paul L., Jr. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 183
Benton v. M-NCPPC - Pet. Docket No. 113
Benton v. Richard - Pet. Docket No. 90
Benton v. Woodmore Overlook Commercial - Pet. Docket No. 89
Blankumsee, Azaniah v. State - Pet. Docket No. 32
Blankumsee, Azaniah v. State - Pet. Docket No. 196
Breard v. Homeland Association Inc. - Pet. Docket No. 179
Brown, Corey v. State - Pet. Docket No. 315 *
Brown, Jacque Alphonso v. State - Pet. Docket No. 165
Dorsey, Kairee Dyonte v. State - Pet. Docket No.105
Ellis, Malachi Tavon v. State - Pet. Docket No.170
Estate of Asshams Manley v. Bell - Pet. Docket No.189
Grant, Thomas John v. State - Pet. Docket No. 159
Gunter v. Md. State Retirement & Pens. Sys. - Pet. Docket No.163
Hamel, Jason v. State - Pet. Docket No. 153
Harris, Rodney Lee, Jr. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 175
Hershberger v. Dept. of Juvenile Services - Pet. Docket No. 181
Howard v. Garner - Pet. Docket No. 128
Johnson, Melvin v. State - Pet. Docket No. 180
Jones, Anthony v. State - Pet. Docket No.167
Jordan, Wayne Arthur v. State - Pet. Docket No. 205
McBride, Robert v. State - Pet. Docket No.174
McGean v. Prince George's Cnty. - Pet. Docket No. 123
Nivens, Stephen v. State - Pet. Docket No. 173
Preston v. Criminal Injuries Compensation Bd. - Pet. Docket No. 171
Ptomey, James Carlton v. State - Pet. Docket No. 166
Purnell, Zamere Dashawn v. State - Pet. Docket No. 162
Rainey v. Smith - Pet. Docket No. 115
Rogers, Lawrence S., Jr. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 199
Smith, Sean Nelson v. State - Pet. Docket No. 40
Tyler, Daquan L. v. DPSCS - Pet. Docket No. 178
Tyler, Daquan v. State - Pet. Docket No.150
Vaughn, Marcus Logan v. State - Pet. Docket No.176
Wheeler, Carlos v. State - Pet. Docket No. 283 *
Wilhelm v. Langowski - Pet. Docket No. 91
Williams, Craig Russell, III v. State - Pet. Docket No. 172
Williams, Tayvon D. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 168
Zaldivar-Medina, Jose v. State - Pet. Docket No. 164



* September Term 2020

 

 

Granted September 29, 2021

Mashour Howling v. State of Maryland - Case No. 35, September Term, 2021

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?

Funiba Abongnelah v. State of Maryland - Case No. 36, September Term, 2021

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?