DAVID NATHANIEL JOHNSON v. STATE OF MARYLAND

Criminal procedure — Plain error review — Inconsistent witness testimony

Appellant David Johnson asks us to reverse his convictions under the often-invoked-but-rarely-granted “plain error review” doctrine. This doctrine allows us in exceptional circumstances to review and correct a clear and material error, even if the issue was otherwise not preserved. As Mr. Johnson sees it, the trial court’s admission of an incourt identification that was inconsistent with the witness’s other testimony was one such obvious and prejudicial error.

Read the opinion