MD Supreme Court to review double jeopardy case, among others

Listen to this article

The Maryland Supreme Court has granted review of four cases to be heard during the court’s September term, including a criminal appeal that aims to clarify the state’s common law rule on double jeopardy.

The high court on Friday granted petitions for writ of certiorari in Miguel Angel Santana v. State of Maryland; Gary Wilson v. Tanglewood Venture, LP; CareFirst BlueChoice, Inc. v. Matthew Skipper, et al. and Donte Demont Strand v. State of Maryland.

Santana

In Santana, the court will decide whether Maryland’s double jeopardy common law bars retrial after a mistrial requested by the defendant where the mistrial was caused by the state’s recklessness, as well as if, in light of clear evidence that the state’s recklessness caused the mistrial, the court should reverse the denial of Santana’s motion to dismiss.

In 2019, a jury before the Charles County Circuit Court found Santana guilty of conspiracy to commit first-degree murder in connection with the shooting death of Lydell Wood and illegal possession of a firearm, but did not reach a verdict on four remaining counts. State prosecutors then brought Santana to trial a second time, where a witness for the state testified about unrelated illegal firearms and marijuana seized from Santana’s residence during the execution of a search warrant, despite prosecutors agreeing to instruct its witnesses to refrain from mentioning the items. The circuit court granted Santana’s request for a mistrial.

In a February unreported opinion, the Maryland Appellate Court affirmed the circuit court’s denial of Santana’s motion to dismiss prosecutors’ charges in a third trial against him, declining to adopt a common law double jeopardy reckless conduct standard. In a 29-page concurrence, Judge Douglas R. M. Nazarian wrote the case presents an appropriate opportunity for the high court to consider whether common law double jeopardy principles should preclude a re-trial.

Wilson

In Wilson, the court will decide whether a court, upon request of an unlicensed landlord, can require a tenant to pay rent under Maryland’s rent escrow law; how the amount in controversy is determined in an escrow matter when the parties’ claims differ from the amount of rent ordered to be placed into escrow and the amount placed in escrow; and if an appeal of a rent escrow matter is moot if, even though dangerous conditions continue unabated, the landlord agrees on appeal not to seek the rent for the unlicensed period subject to escrow or if there are collateral consequences to the trial court’s dismissal of the escrow.

The case stems from Wilson’s complaint in July 2023 against his apartment complex in the Prince George’s County District Court asking for a 100% rent reduction until problems with the rental property have been fixed, including the property having no hot water, roaches, water damage and a broken elevator. According to court records, the landlord, Tanglewood Venture LP, did not have a valid rental license from January 2022 to approximately June 2024.

A district court judge ordered Wilson to pay rent into an escrow account in September 2023, with counsel for Wilson later arguing tenants should not be required to pay rent into an escrow given the landlord’s lack of license. In November of that year, a judge granted Tanglewood’s motion to dismiss, citing Wilson and another tenant’s failure to fund their escrow accounts. Wilson and another tenant filed a complaint against Tanglewood in the Prince George’s County Circuit Court in December 2024, from which the high court granted certiorari.

CareFirst

In CareFirst, the court will decide whether the Maryland Appellate Court erred when it applied the incorrect standard to its analysis of whether Matthew and Jamie Skipper’s complaint stated claims for breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation; whether the appellate court erroneously concluded that the Skippers’ claims for breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation did not fail as a matter of law; whether the appellate court erred when it held that the mere possibility that the Skippers could be entitled to pre-judgment interest is sufficient to confer standing and seek class certification under Maryland law; and whether the appellate court erred when it found the Skippers had standing to pursue their claims against CareFirst BlueChoice.

The Skippers filed a suit against CareFirst in the Prince George’s County Circuit Court in March 2023 following CareFirst’s denial of coverage for an embryo thawing service in 2018, where the Skippers opted to pay $900 out of pocket for the service. The Skippers had also filed an action in federal court and previously filed a complaint with the Maryland Insurance Administration; while the administrative action was pending, CareFirst paid the $900 charge.

Writing for the Maryland Appellate Court, Senior Judge Michele Hotten ruled the Skippers have standing, finding that satisfaction of the principal debt prior to judgment does not render moot the Skippers’ claim for pre-judgment interest. This marks the first time the Maryland Supreme Court will review a decision authored by Hotten since she retired from the high bench.

Strand

In Strand, the court will decide whether trial courts should apply an essential element variance analysis or a substantial prejudice variance analysis in a theft prosecution where the state alleges that a specific item has been stolen but fails to prove what was stolen; whether, if the trial courts apply a substantial prejudice variance analysis, Donte Demont Strand was misled such that he could not lodge an effective defense or was exposed to double jeopardy where the state alleged specific items had been stolen but failed to prove the identity of what was taken; if the evidence is sufficient to convict where an indictment for theft alleges specific items stolen but fails to prove the identity of the item; and if, where the consolidated theft statute defines property as “anything of value,” it is a rational interference that any unidentified tangible item has value because every tangible item invariably has an ascertainable replacement cost or if the value of an item requires some evidence.

The Harford County Circuit Court convicted Strand of theft less than $100, where prosecutors alleged Strand stole medical cards but failed to prove the white, card-sized objects were in fact medical cards.

In a March 2025 unreported opinion, the Maryland Appellate Court held there was no material variance and that there was sufficient evidence from which a rational jury could infer that Strand was an accomplice to another defendant.