Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1971–2016 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Maryland courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Simpson v. Stategreen2 sentences2016See Simpson v. State, 442 Md. 446, 463 , 112 A.3d 941 (2015) (A trial court’s corrective instruction given to the jury three days after an improper opening statement does not “ ‘cure’ the error created by the State’s opening.”). 2016See Simpson v. State, 442 Md. 446, 463 , 112 A.3d 941 (2015) (A trial court’s corrective instruction given to the jury three days after an improper opening statement does not “ ‘cure’ the error created by the State’s opening.”). | 1 | 1 |
Drake v. Stategreen1 sentence2011With respect to the presumptive adequacy of a curative instruction, Judge Deborah Eyler observed for this Court, 186 Md.App. at 589-90, 975 A.2d 204 : In the present case, the trial judge gave a forceful curative instruction at the outset of the next morning’s proceedings, when jurors were most likely to be alert and understand it, and, furthermore, at the earliest feasible time after the error had occurred. | 1 | 1 |
People v. MacKinsgreen2 sentences1994It is, of course, true that just because a prosecutor makes an improper jury argument this does not necessarily “constitute reversible error.” Wilhelm, 272 Md. at 431 , 326 A.2d 707 (quoting People v. Mackins, 17 Ill.App.3d 24 , 308 N.E.2d 92, 110 (1974)). 1994It is, of course, true that just because a prosecutor makes an improper jury argument this does not necessarily “constitute reversible error.” Wilhelm, 272 Md. at 431 , 326 A.2d 707 (quoting People v. Mackins, 17 Ill.App.3d 24 , 308 N.E.2d 92, 110 (1974)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Attorney Grievance Commission v. Cooper
green
1 sentence2016This is completely proper opening statement and the trial court would have erred had it instructed the jury to disregard it. 5 Another problem with a corrective instruction is that such instructions “must be timely, accurate, and effective.” Simmons, 436 Md. at 219 , 81 A.3d 383 (citation omitted; emphasis added). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Simmons v. State
green
1 sentence2016This is completely proper opening statement and the trial court would have erred had it instructed the jury to disregard it. 5 Another problem with a corrective instruction is that such instructions “must be timely, accurate, and effective.” Simmons, 436 Md. at 219 , 81 A.3d 383 (citation omitted; emphasis added). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Wise v. State
green
2 sentences2016According to appellant, “the court rejected that alternative because it believed that such a closing argument would amount to impermissible burden-shifting or to an impermissible comment on [appellant’s] constitutionally protected right not to testify.” Citing to Wise v. State, 132 Md.App. 127, 148 , 751 A.2d 24 (2000), appellant contends that the opening statement “ ‘open[ed] the door to ... fair comment’ ” about “the lack of evidence produced,” regardless of whether it would draw attention to appellant’s decision not to testify. 2016According to appellant, “the court rejected that alternative because it believed that such a closing argument would amount to impermissible burden-shifting or to an impermissible comment on [appellant’s] constitutionally protected right not to testify.” Citing to Wise v. State, 132 Md.App. 127, 148 , 751 A.2d 24 (2000), appellant contends that the opening statement “ ‘open[ed] the door to ... fair comment’ ” about “the lack of evidence produced,” regardless of whether it would draw attention to appellant’s decision not to testify. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Vitek v. State
green
2 sentences2013In addition, Allen moved for a mistrial because, in his view, “it’s highly prejudicial that she mentioned the fact that he was unemployed.” Citing to Vitek v. State, 295 Md. 35 , 453 A.2d 514 (1982), the trial court agreed with defense counsel that the statement was improper, and that a corrective instruction was warranted. 2013In addition, Allen moved for a mistrial because, in his view, “it’s highly prejudicial that she mentioned the fact that he was unemployed.” Citing to Vitek v. State, 295 Md. 35 , 453 A.2d 514 (1982), the trial court agreed with defense counsel that the statement was improper, and that a corrective instruction was warranted. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Drake and Charles v. State
green
1 sentence2011With respect to the presumptive adequacy of a curative instruction, Judge Deborah Eyler observed for this Court, 186 Md.App. at 589-90, 975 A.2d 204 : In the present case, the trial judge gave a forceful curative instruction at the outset of the next morning’s proceedings, when jurors were most likely to be alert and understand it, and, furthermore, at the earliest feasible time after the error had occurred. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Wilhelm v. State
green
2 sentences1994It is, of course, true that just because a prosecutor makes an improper jury argument this does not necessarily “constitute reversible error.” Wilhelm, 272 Md. at 431 , 326 A.2d 707 (quoting People v. Mackins, 17 Ill.App.3d 24 , 308 N.E.2d 92, 110 (1974)). 1994It is, of course, true that just because a prosecutor makes an improper jury argument this does not necessarily “constitute reversible error.” Wilhelm, 272 Md. at 431 , 326 A.2d 707 (quoting People v. Mackins, 17 Ill.App.3d 24 , 308 N.E.2d 92, 110 (1974)). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
DeMay v. Carper
green
2 sentences1971The rule in such cases was set forth by Chief Judge Hammond in DeMay v. Carper, 247 Md. 535 , 233 A. 2d 765 (1967), where he said for the Court: “[I]mproper or prejudicial statements, remarks or arguments of counsel generally are cured by *464 reproof by the trial judge; to his discretion customarily is left the choice of methods to protect the fair and unprejudiced workings of the judicial proceedings and his decision as to the effect of that choice upon the jury and only in the exceptional case, the blatant case, will his choice of cure and his decision as to its effect be reversed on appeal 1971The rule in such cases was set forth by Chief Judge Hammond in DeMay v. Carper, 247 Md. 535 , 233 A. 2d 765 (1967), where he said for the Court: “[I]mproper or prejudicial statements, remarks or arguments of counsel generally are cured by *464 reproof by the trial judge; to his discretion customarily is left the choice of methods to protect the fair and unprejudiced workings of the judicial proceedings and his decision as to the effect of that choice upon the jury and only in the exceptional case, the blatant case, will his choice of cure and his decision as to its effect be reversed on appeal | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.