I. Did the trial court commit plain error in failing to give a missing witness instruction? II. Is the evidence insufficient to sustain the robbery conviction?
Though the delay in this matter was protracted, the reasons for it were generally reasonable. Appellant did assert his right to a speedy trial, but did not demonstrate the most significant type of prejudice, viz., impairment of his defense.
1. Did the trial court commit reversible error in denying Appellant’s motion to suppress an out-of-court identification based on an improperly suggestive photo array? 2. Did the trial court violate Appellant’s Confrontation Clause rights when, during cross-examination, it denied Appellant a full and fair opportunity to explore the issue of bias?
The trial judge found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Pitts was in the motor vehicle of another with intent to commit theft of the motor vehicle or property in the vehicle. In this appeal, Pitts contends the evidence was insufficient to prove he was in the vehicle with the intent to steal either the vehicle or the contents of that vehicle.
We do not find it necessary to inquire into the merits of the alleged flaws in the verdict-rendering process. We agree with the State that they deal with alleged procedural flaws that are not cognizable under Maryland Rule 4-345
Did the trial court err in failing to merge the convictions for assault with the conviction for resisting arrest? Did the court impose an illegal sentence?
An online news article, published more than a decade after appellant's trial, was not admissible or even capable of being admitted at appellant's original trial, and therefore was not newly discovered evidence under the statute governing petitions for writ of actual innocence.
Did the court err by denying Baynor’s petition for writ of actual innocence without a hearing?
Did the trial court abuse its discretion by allowing the State to make an improper closing argument, which cited to a stipulation by the defense?
Appellant’s contention is that the trial court erred by failing to give the Maryland Pattern Jury Instruction on mistake of fact, because she testified that she was unaware that she hit a person, and instead thought she hit a deer.
In this appeal, appellant complains (1) that the evidence was legally insufficient to sustain the attempted first degree murder conviction, and (2) that the prosecutor engaged in improper closing argument that resulted in an unfair trial.
Ivor claims that the poll was defective because the clerk failed to poll the forelady. As a result, he asserts that “it is impossible to know if the jury was unanimous.”