green
Positive treatment
5.8 score
Treatment trajectory · 1982 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1982
2004
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 13 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "see"
Walker v. State
See Baldwin v. Slate, 45 Md.App. 378 , 413 A.2d 246 (1980), aff'd, 289 Md. 635 , 426 A.2d 916 (1981), cert. denied, Baldwin v. Maryland, 454 U.S. 852 , 102 S.Ct. 295 , 70 L.Ed.2d 144 (1981). 6 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Butler v. United States
See Carpenter v. United States, 430 A.2d 496, 504 (D.C.) (en banc), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 852 , 102 S.Ct. 295 , 70 L.Ed.2d 143 (1981) (redaction of co-defendant’s statement is a permissible way of avoiding Bruton problems).
discussed
Cited "see"
Standiford v. Standiford
See generally Baldwin v. State, 45 Md.App. 378 , 413 A.2d 246 (1980), aff'd 289 Md. 635 , 426 A.2d 916 , cert. denied, 454 U.S. 852 , 102 S.Ct. 295 , 70 L.Ed.2d 144 (1981); Wood v. State, 290 Md. 579 , 431 A.2d 93 (1981); Petric v. State, 66 Md.App. 470 , 504 A.2d 1168 , cert. denied, 479 U.S. 860 , 107 S.Ct. 206 , 93 L.Ed.2d 136 (1986).
cited
Cited "see"
Allen v. State
See Baldwin v. State, 45 Md.App. 378, 380 , 413 A.2d 246 (1980), affd, 289 Md. 635 , 426 A.2d 916 , cert. denied, 454 U.S. 852 , 102 S.Ct. 295 , 70 L.Ed.2d 144 (1981). 3 .
cited
Cited "see"
Ricks v. State
See Baldwin v. State, 45 Md.App. 378, 380 , 413 A.2d 246 (1980), aff'd, 289 Md. 635 , 426 A.2d 916 (1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 852 , 102 S.Ct. 295 , 70 L.Ed.2d 144 (1981).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Wheeler
(2×)
See Wilkerson v. United States, 427 A.2d 923 (D.C.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 852 (1981); People v. Lippert, 89 Ill.2d 171 , 432 N.E.2d 605 , cert. denied, 459 U.S. 841 (1982). [2] The Washington cases cited suffer the same defect.
discussed
Cited "see"
Moore v. State
(2×)
See Wilkerson v. United States, 427 A.2d 923, 924 (D.C.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 852 , 102 S.Ct. 295 , 70 L.Ed.2d 143 (1981) (arresting officer noted that defendant was not walking in the direction of place where he stated he was going and in fact had walked passed the street leading to the most direct route).
cited
Cited "see"
Payne v. United States
See Wilkerson v. United States, 427 A.2d 923, 927 (D.C.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 852 , 102 S.Ct. 295 , 70 L.Ed.2d 143 (1981).
cited
Cited "see"
Benford v. American Broadcasting Co., Inc.
See State v. Baldwin, 289 Md. 635, 641 , 426 A.2d 916, 920-21 , cert. denied, 454 U.S. 852 , 102 S.Ct. 295 , 70 L.Ed.2d 144 (1981); Wood v. State, 290 Md. 579, 583 , 431 A.2d 93, 95 (1981).
discussed
Cited "see"
Jones v. United States
See Carpenter v. United States, 430 A.2d 496, 501-503 (D.C.) (en banc), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 852 , 102 S.Ct. 295 , 70 L.Ed.2d 143 (1981). 7 Finally, appellant Britt argues that the trial court erred in not declaring a mistrial when the prosecutor asked the government’s witness Smith if he had taken notes of his conversation with Britt. 8 Appellant contends that the question improperly bolstered Smith’s unimpeached testimony with a prior consistent statement.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Hunter
Id. at 828 (emphasis added). 5 We reiterated only a few months ago that “[n]o reliability determination is required unless the trial court has determined that the eyewitness identification was unduly suggestive.” Scales v. United States, 687 A.2d 927 , 937 n. 15 (D.C.1996); see also Wilkerson v. United States, 427 A.2d 923, 926 (D.C.1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 852 , 102 S.Ct. 295 , 70 L.Ed.2d 143 (1981) (where a showup has not been shown to be unduly suggestive, the court need not evaluate its reliability).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Ezenwa v. State
See Poore, 39 Md.App. at 53-54 , 384 A.2d 103 ; see also Baldwin v. State, 45 Md.App. 378, 393 , 413 A.2d 246 (1980), aff'd, 289 Md. 635 , 426 A.2d 916 , cert. denied, 454 U.S. 852 , 102 S.Ct. 295 , 70 L.Ed.2d 144 (1981). 5 Appellant Ezenwa argues that the trial court erred by admitting into evidence telephone conversations to which he was a party, without first having required the State to prove aliunde that a conspiracy existed between them. 11 Maryland law recognizes a common law hearsay exception pursuant to which the out-of-court statement of a co-conspirator is admissible as substantive …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Harris v. United States
(2×)
See id. at 398-99 (citing with approval State v. Moreno, 92 Ariz. 116 , 374 P.2d 872 (1962) (en banc)); see also Wilkerson v. United States, 427 A.2d 923, 927 (D.C.) (in rape prosecution, although identity was the critical issue, no abuse of discretion in admitting photographs of the victim’s body to establish element of force), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 852 , 102 S.Ct. 295 , 70 L.Ed.2d 143 (1981).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Trussell
v.
Ohio
v.
Ohio
No. 80-6837.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 5, 1981.
Published
Ct. App. Ohio, Montgomery County. Certiorari denied.