State v. Heath (2019)

App. at 18 (quoting State v. Heath, 464 Md. 445, 464 (2019)) (ellipses and further citation omitted).

Rather, the probative value of evidence “is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice when the evidence ‘tends to have some adverse effect . . . beyond tending to prove the fact or issue that justified its admission.’” Id. (quoting State v. Heath, 464 Md. 445, 464 (2019)) (further citation omitted). 28 i. Interrogation Video of Appellant in a Jail Uniform 1.

Probative value is substantially outweighed by 3 The State concedes that the issues were preserved by general objections during trial. 11 unfair prejudice when the evidence “‘tends to have some adverse effect . . . beyond tending to prove the fact or issue that justified its admission.’” State v. Heath, 464 Md. 445, 464 (2019) (quoting Hannah v. State, 420 Md. 339, 347 (2011)).

Under Rule 5-403, unfair prejudice outweighs a piece of relevant evidence’s probative value if it “tends to have some adverse effect . . . beyond 11 Rule 5-404(b) was amended on May 15, 2019 (effective July 1, 2019), to include as an additional exception evidence “in conformity with Rule 5-413.” Rule 5-413, which was adopted on May 15, 2019, became effective on July 1, 2019, and is the counterpart to CJP § 10-923, authorizing the introduction of certain propensity evidence i…

Under Rule 5-403, unfair prejudice outweighs a piece of relevant evidence’s probative value if it “tends to have some adverse effect . . . beyond 11 Rule 5-404(b) was amended on May 15, 2019 (effective July 1, 2019), to include as an additional exception evidence “in conformity with Rule 5-413.” Rule 5-413, which was adopted on May 15, 2019, became effective on July 1, 2019, and is the counterpart to CJP § 10-923, authorizing the introduction of certain propensity evidence i…

See, e.g., State v. Robertson, 463 Md. 342, 365 (2019) (explaining the trial court’s error underlying abuse of discretion holding and correcting the mistake for future cases); State v. Heath, 464 Md. 445, 462-65 (2019) (holding that the trial court abused its discretion, and explaining how the abuse occurred and how it could be avoided in future cases).

See, e.g., State v. Robertson, 463 Md. 342, 365 (2019) (explaining the trial court’s error underlying abuse of discretion holding and correcting the mistake for future cases); State v. Heath, 464 Md. 445, 462-65 (2019) (holding that the trial court abused its discretion, and explaining how the abuse occurred and how it could be avoided in future cases).

This “remedy [was] proportionate to the malady.” Morales, 2022 Guam 1 ¶ 59 (quoting State v. Heath, 211 A.3d 458, 463 (Md. 2019)).

See, e.g., State v. Heath, 211 A.3d 458, 463 (Md. 2019) (“[I]n admitting evidence under the ‘open door’ doctrine, People v. Morales, 2022 Guam 1 , Opinion Page 23 of 29 ‘the remedy must be proportionate to the malady’ . . . .”); United States v. Winston, 447 F.2d 1236, 1240 (D.C.

Instead, the rule mandates that the prejudice must be “unfair,” meaning it “tends to have some adverse effect . . . beyond tending to prove the fact or issue that justified its admission.” Id. at 688–89 (alteration in 19 original) (quoting State v. Heath, 464 Md. 445, 464 (2019)) (holding that admission of defendant’s recorded rap lyrics was not unfairly prejudicial as improper propensity evidence where a close nexus existed between the lyrics and the crime charged).

Instead, the rule mandates that the prejudice must be “unfair,” meaning it “tends to have some adverse effect . . . beyond tending to prove the fact or issue that justified its admission.” Id. at 688–89 (alteration in 19 original) (quoting State v. Heath, 464 Md. 445, 464 (2019)) (holding that admission of defendant’s recorded rap lyrics was not unfairly prejudicial as improper propensity evidence where a close nexus existed between the lyrics and the crime charged).

App. 605, 640 (2020) 19 Based on our foregoing analysis of relevance and prejudice, our ultimate decision would be the same even if we had concluded that the Rape Shield Statute did not apply. 41 (quoting State v. Heath, 464 Md. 445, 467 (2019)).

Instead, probative value is substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice when the evidence “tends to have some adverse effect . . . beyond tending to prove the fact or issue that justified its admission.” State v. Heath, 464 Md. 445, 464 (2019) (quoting Hannah v. State, 420 Md. 339, 347 (2011)).

State v. Heath, 464 Md. 445, 467 (2019).