green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
22.4 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 1999 ·
…e now hold that to merit a jury instruction on voluntariness ... the issue must be generated before the jury ... that there be evidence at trial from which the trier of fact could conclude that the confession was involuntary.
at p. 388
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1995 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1995
2010
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 30 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Baynor v. State
(4×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
e now hold that to merit a jury instruction on voluntariness ... the issue must be generated before the jury ... that there be evidence at trial from which the trier of fact could conclude that the confession was involuntary.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Brown v. State
(4×)
In Maryland, a confession may be admitted against an accused only when it has been “determined that the confession was ‘(1) voluntary under Maryland non-constitutional law, (2) voluntary under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 22 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights,[ 7 ] and (3) elicited in conformance with the mandates of Miranda.’” Ball v. State, 347 Md. 156, 173-74 , 699 A.2d 1170, 1178 (1997) (quoting Hof v. State, 337 Md. 581, 597-98 , 655 A.2d 370, 378 (1995)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Gordon v. State
Hof v. State, 337 Md. 581, 605 , 655 A.2d 370, 382 (1995).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lee v. State
(2×)
See Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 397-98 , 98 S.Ct. 2408 , 57 L.Ed.2d 290 (1978) (any criminal trial use of a defendant's statement which was involuntary under the federal constitution is prohibited); Hof v. State, 337 Md. 581, 599-600 , *1252 655 A.2d 370, 379 (1995) (a statement is inadmissible in the State's case in chief and for impeachment purposes if it is involuntary under Maryland common law).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Hill v. State
(4×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Knight, 381 Md. at 532 , 850 A.2d at 1188 ; Hof v. State, 337 Md. 581, 605-06 , 655 A.2d 370, 382 (1995). .
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Fleming v. State
See id. at 486-87 , 789 A.2d at 108-09 ; Hof v. State, 337 Md. 581, 612 , 655 A.2d 370, 386 (1995); Binnie v. State, 321 Md. 572, 582 , *433 583 A.2d 1037, 1041 (1991).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Winder v. State
(5×)
also: Cited "see"
Hoey, 311 Md. at 480 , 536 A.2d at 625 ; Ball, 347 Md. at 173-74 , 699 A.2d at 1178 ; Burch v. State, 346 Md. 253, 265 , 696 A.2d 443, 449 (1997); Hof v. State, 337 Md. 581, 598 , 655 A.2d 370, 378 (1995).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
West v. State
Id. at 596-97, 655 A.2d at 377-78 (citations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ball v. State
The introduction of a confession as evidence against the accused at trial is permitted only where it is determined that the confession was “ ‘(1) voluntary under Maryland non-constitutional law, (2) voluntary under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth *174 Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 22 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights, and (3) elicited in conformance with the mandates of Miranda.’ ” Hof v. State, 337 Md. 581, 597-98 , 655 A.2d 370, 378 (1995) (quoting Hoey v. State, 311 Md. 473, 480 , 536 A.2d 622, 625 (1988)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Burch v. State
(2×)
In Hof v. State, 337 Md. 581, 597 , 655 A.2d 370, 378 (1995), we confirmed that a defendant’s confession is admissible in a Maryland court only if it is “(1) voluntary under Maryland nonconstitutional law, (2) voluntary under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 22 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights, and (3) elicited in conformance with the mandates of Miranda ” (quoting from Hoey v. State, 311 Md. 473, 480 , 536 A.2d 622, 625 (1988)).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Robertson v. State
(4×)
The federal courts generally hold that “[a] defendant is entitled to have the judge instruct the jury on his theory of defense provided that it is supported by law and has some foundation in the evidence.” Hairston, 64 F.3d at 494 (quoting United States v. Mason, 902 F.2d 1434, 1437 (9th Cir. 1990)). 3 Cf. Hof v. State, 337 Md. 581, 612-13 , 655 A.2d 370, 386 (1995) (a requested instruction must be given when there is evidence in the record to support it).
discussed
Cited "see"
Freeman v. State
(2×)
See Hof v. State, 337 Md. 581, 596-97 , 655 A.2d 370 (1995)(noting that delay in presentment is one of the factors relevant to voluntariness).
discussed
Cited "see"
Faulkner v. State
(2×)
See Hof v. State, 337 Md. 581, 595-96 , 655 A.2d 370 (1995).
examined
Cited "see"
Perez v. State
(8×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Hof v. State, 337 Md. 581, 595 , 655 A.2d 370 (1995).
discussed
Cited "see"
Whittington v. State
(2×)
See Hof v. State, 337 Md. 581, 597-98 , 655 A.2d 370 (1995); Hoey, 311 Md. at 480 , 536 A.2d 622 ; see also Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157, 166-67 , 107 S.Ct. 515 , 93 L.Ed.2d 473 (1986); Pappaconstantinou v. State, 352 Md. 167, 172-73 , 721 A.2d 241 (1998).
discussed
Cited "see"
Shady Grove Psychiatric Group v. State
(2×)
Rule 8-504; See Beck v. Mangels, 100 Md.App. 144 , 640 A.2d 236 , cert. granted, 336 Md. 405 , 648 A.2d 991 (1994), cert. dismissed as improvidently granted, 337 Md. 580 , 655 A.2d 370 (1995)(noting that the provisions of Rule 8-504 are mandatory and that it is necessary for an appellant to present and argue all points of an appeal in the initial brief); Federal Land Bank of Baltimore, Inc. v. Esham, 43 Md.App. 446 , 406 A.2d 928 (1979).
examined
Cited "see"
Watkins v. State
(3×)
See Hof v. State, 337 Md. 581, 597-98 , 655 A.2d 370 (1995).
discussed
Cited "see"
Dorsey v. State
See generally Hof v. State, 337 Md. 581, 605-06 , 655 A.2d 370, 382 (1995); State v. Kidd, 281 Md. 32, 37-38 , 375 A.2d 1105, 1109 (1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1002 , 98 S.Ct. 646 , 54 L.Ed.2d 498 (1977)(preponderance standard applies in criminal cases to the State’s proof of preliminary factual matters).
discussed
Cited "see"
Gunning v. State
(2×)
See Hof v. State, 337 Md. 581 , 655 A.2d 370 (1995); Blackwell v. State, 278 Md. 466 , 365 A.2d 545 (1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 918 , 97 S.Ct. 2183 , 53 L.Ed.2d 229 (1977); Hardison v. State, 226 Md. 53 , 172 A.2d 407 (1961), aff'd, 229 Md. 291 , 182 A.2d 487 (1962); see also Md.
discussed
Cited "see"
Hoffman v. UNITED IRON AND METAL COMPANY, INC.
(2×)
See Beck v. Mangels, 100 Md.App. 144, 149 , 640 A.2d 236 , cert. granted, 336 Md. 405 , 648 A.2d 991 (1994), cert. dismissed as improvidently granted, 337 Md. 580 , 655 A.2d 370 (1995).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Peterson v. Orphans' Court for Queen Anne's County
(2×)
Rule 8-504(c) (“For noncompliance with this Rule, the appellate court may dismiss the appeal or make any other appropriate order with respect to the case[.]”); see also Beck v. Mangels, 100 Md.App. 144, 149 , 640 A.2d 236 (1994) (“ ‘[W]here a party initially raised an issue but then failed to provide supporting argument, this Court has declined to consider the merits of the question so presented but not argued’ ”) (citation omitted), cert. dismissed, 337 Md. 580 , 655 A.2d 370 (1995).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Dziekonski v. State
See also Hof v. State, 337 Md. 581, 612 , 655 A.2d 370 (1995) (Rule 4-325(c) “has been interpreted to require that a requested instruction be given only when there is evidence in the record to support it.”); Davis v. State, 104 Md.App. 290, 293 , 656 A.2d 326 (1995) (“It is incumbent upon the trial court, on request in a criminal case, to give an advisory instruction on every point of law essential to the crime charged and supported by evidence.”).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Broadcast Equities, Inc. v. Montgomery County
(2×)
Rule 8-504; see also Beck v. Mangels, 100 Md.App. 144, 149 , 640 A.2d 236 (1994), cert. dismissed, 337 Md. 580 , 655 A.2d 370 (1995); Federal Land Bank v. Esham, 43 Md.App. 446, 457-58 , 406 A.2d 928 (1979).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Beretta U.S.A. Corp. v. Santos
(2×)
Rule 8-504; Federal Land Bank v. Esham, 43 Md.App. 446, 458-59 , 406 A.2d 928 (1979); see also Beck v. Mangels, 100 Md.App. 144, 149 , 640 A.2d 236 (1994), cert. dismissed, 337 Md. 580 , 655 A.2d 370 (1995).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Dishman v. State
Blackwell v. State, 278 Md. 466, 477 , 365 A.2d 545 (1976), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 918 , 97 S.Ct. 2183 , 53 L.Ed.2d 229 (1977) (“The general rule is that where there is no evidence supporting conviction of a lesser degree of homicide, no instructions on lesser offenses should be given.”); Beckwith v. State, 78 Md.App. at 366 , 553 A.2d 259 ; see also Hof v. State, 337 Md. 581, 612 , 655 A.2d 370 (1995) (Maryland Rule 4-325(c) “has been interpreted to require that a requested instruction be given only where there is evidence in the record to support it.”).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re Joshua David C.
See also Hof, 337 Md. at 595 , 655 A.2d 370 ; Lodowski v. State, 307 Md. 233, 254 , 513 A.2d 299 (1986).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Martin v. State
See also Hof v. State, 97 Md.App. 242, 269 , 629 A.2d 1251 (1993), aff'd on other grounds, 337 Md. 581 , 655 A.2d 370 (1995) 4 (“Bram [v. United States ] left no doubt that the test of voluntariness, now embodied within the Fifth Amendment privilege, was the traditional common law test of voluntariness.”) The broad sweep of the Fifth Amendment privilege cases makes it very clear that the question of whether a statement is compelled calls for an ad hoc determination with a focus exclusively on the subjective state of mind of the defendant giving the statement.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
William S. BECK
v.
Roger N. MANGELS
v.
Roger N. MANGELS
No. 88.
Court of Appeals of Maryland.
Feb 8, 1995.
Elise Davis, Chestertown (Anne C. Ogletree, Denton both on brief), for petitioner., R. Stewart Barroll (Hoon & Barroll, on brief, Chestertown, Robert R. Kern, Jr., Gallagher, Evelius & Jones on brief, of Baltimore), for respondent.
Cited by 11 opinions | Published
ORDER
PER CURIAM.Prior Report: 100 Md.App. 144, 640 A.2d 236.
The petition for writ of certiorari in the above entitled case having been granted and heard, it is this 8th day of February, 1994
ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland; that the writ of certiorari be, and it is hereby, dismissed with costs, the petition having been improvidently granted.