A suspect’s substantial alteration of his or her hairstyle after the crime could constitute destruction or concealment of evidence and indicate to the jury the defendant’s consciousness of guilt, Maryland’s top court unanimously ruled Thursday in upholding a man’s first-degree murder conviction. In its 7-0 decision, the Court of Appeals rejected Robert Rainey’s argument through […[...]
Attorneys battled before Maryland’s top court over whether a suspect’s substantial alteration of hairstyle after the crime could constitute destruction of evidence.
Maryland’s top court will consider whether a criminal suspect’s substantial alteration of their hairstyle after the crime could constitute destruction of evidence.
A convicted murderer has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review and overturn his conviction because his attorney failed to request a jury instruction on the defense of alibi after four people testified at trial that he was most likely not at the 2003 Baltimore-area slaying. Had it been requested, the alibi jury instruction would […]
Delving into the issue of deadly domestic violence, Maryland’s second-highest court ruled Friday that judges have the duty to decide whether to admit into evidence instances of past abuse that indicate defendants may have suffered from Battered Spouse Syndrome when claiming they killed their significant other in self-defense. Jurors can then consider that evidence of […]
A convicted killer’s bid for a new trial could depend on whether a judge’s notes or a court reporter’s transcript is to be believed. Maryland’s top court on Friday unanimously ordered a review of Mark Edmund Christian II’s February 2012 trial to determine if now-retired Harford County Circuit Judge Stephen Waldron properly instructed the jury, […]
Appellant presents the following questions for our consideration: I. Did the trial court err by refusing to instruct the jury on the defense of mistake of fact? II. Did the trial court err in instructing the jury on the defense of honest belief?
Appellant presents one issue for our review: whether the trial court committed plain error in failing to instruct the jury on the “claim of right” defense to the charge of theft.
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?
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.
1. Did the court abuse its discretion by qualifying a police officer as an expert in CDS identification, packaging, and sales when the officer had undergone no special training in that field and had never testified before as an expert? 2. Did the court plainly err by instructing the jury on “believable doubt” rather than reasonable doubt?
1. Whether the circuit court erred in admitting testimony that appellant underwent a neuropsychological evaluation for the purpose of obtaining disability benefits through the Social Security Administration. 2. Whether the circuit court erred in declining to give a jury instruction on susceptibility.