Potts v. State

IVAN POTTS v. STATE OF MARYLAND
Court of Special Appeals, Wright, Dec. 28, 2016,
Merger – Where a prohibited person is convicted of possession of a regulated firearm under PS 5-133(c)(1) and possession of ammunition under PS 5-133.1, the sentences do not merge.

Continue reading

Taneja v. State

BALDEO TANEJA v. STATE OF MARYLAND
Court of Special Appeals, Sharer, Nov. 30, 2016,
Witness Testimony – “Alternative Suspect” – No abuse of discretion where the court refused to allow a defense witness to testify where the witness was the co-defendant’s son and the defendant wanted to present him as an alternative suspect without a factual basis.
Continue reading

Larry Jackson v. State

LARRY JACKSON v. STATE OF MARYLAND
Court of Special Appeals, Woodward, Oct. 26, 2016,
Evidence – Evidence of past history of domestic violence with the victim was properly admitted to show motive: exertion of control over the victim through violence.
Continue reading

US v. Garcia-Lagunas

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. ALEJANDRO GARCIA-LAGUNAS
US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Diaz, Sept. 1, 2016,
Evidence – Ethnic/racial stereotypes – Officer’s expert testimony that “Hispanic drug traffickers” are “very modest living” because “they send the majority if not all of the proceeds back to their native countries” was an improper “injection of a defendant’s ethnicity into a trial as evidence of criminal behavior.”

(Dissent – Davis – The government hasn’t met burden of proving unconstitutional appeal to ethnic bias was harmless)
Continue reading

Grimm v. State

ANGELA ANN GRIMM v. STATE OF MARYLAND
Court of Appeals, Greene, Filed May 4, 2016,
Testimony – Antithesis Inference – Discredited non-party testimony “is assigned no weight” and can not be used “in the consideration of the ultimate issue.” (Belief that a non-party witness is lying can not independently support the argument that the opposite is true)

(Dissent – Watts – Witness testimony that they could not remember whether or not they had sex with their step-mother was sufficiently preposterous to support the defendant’s confession)

Continue reading