content instruction in Maryland

2026The court need not grant a requested instruction if the matter is fairly covered by instructions actually given.” Rule 4-325(c) has been interpreted to require trial courts to give a requested instruction to the jury when: “(1) the instruction is a correct statement of law; (2) the instruction is applicable to the facts of the case; and (3) the content of the instruction was not fairly covered elsewhere in instructions actually given.” Dickey, 404 Md. at 197 -98 (citing Thompson v. State, 393 Md. 291 , 302- 10 03 (2006)).

2024Additionally, Maryland Rule 4- 325(c) requires “the giving of a requested instruction when[:] . . . (1) the instruction is a correct statement of law; (2) the instruction is applicable to the facts of the case; and (3) the content of the instruction was not fairly covered elsewhere in instructions actually given.” Dickey v. State, 404 Md. 187 , 197–98, 946 A.2d 444, 450 (2008).

2017Hall v. State, 437 Md. 534, 539 , 87 A.3d 1287 (2014). “[A] trial court must give a requested jury instruction where ‘(1) the instruction is a correct statement of law; (2) the instruction is applicable to the facts of the case; and (3) the content of the instruction was not fairly covered elsewhere in instructions actually given.’ ” Vielot v. State, 225 Md.App. 492, 505 , 126 A.3d 143 (2015) (quoting Dickey v. State, 404 Md. 187, 197-98 , 946 A.2d 444 (2008)). “[I]f, taken as a whole, [the court’s instructions] correctly state the law, are not misleading, and cover adequately the issues raise

2017Hall v. State, 437 Md. 534, 539 , 87 A.3d 1287 (2014). “[A] trial court must give a requested jury instruction where ‘(1) the instruction is a correct statement of law; (2) the instruction is applicable to the facts of the case; and (3) the content of the instruction was not fairly covered elsewhere in instructions actually given.’ ” Vielot v. State, 225 Md.App. 492, 505 , 126 A.3d 143 (2015) (quoting Dickey v. State, 404 Md. 187, 197-98 , 946 A.2d 444 (2008)). “[I]f, taken as a whole, [the court’s instructions] correctly state the law, are not misleading, and cover adequately the issues raise

2016See Derr v. State, 484 Md. 88 , 133, 73 A.3d 254, 281 (2013) (“A trial court must give a requested jury instruction where[:] (1) the instruction is a correct statement of [the] law; (2) the instruction is applicable to the facts of the case; and (3) the content of the instruction was not fairly covered elsewhere in instructions actually given.... [I]f, taken as a whole, [jury instructions] correctly state the law, are not misleading, and cover adequately the issues raised by the evidence, [then] the defendant has not been prejudiced[,] and reversal is inappropriate.” (Citation omitted)).

2016See Derr v. State, 434 Md. 88, 133 , 73 A.3d 254, 281 (2013) (“A trial court must give a requested jury instruction where[:] (1) the instruction is a correct statement of [the] law; (2) the instruction is applicable to the facts of the case; and (3) the content of the instruction was not fairly covered elsewhere in instructions actually given. . . . [I]f, taken as a whole, [jury instructions] correctly state the law, are not misleading, and cover adequately the issues raised by the evidence, [then] the defendant has not been prejudiced[,] and reversal is inappropriate.” (Citation omitted)).

2022The court need not grant a requested instruction if the matter is fairly covered by instructions actually given. 35 the instruction is a correct statement of law; (2) the instruction is applicable to the facts of the case; and (3) the content of the instruction was not fairly covered elsewhere in instructions actually given.’” Cost, 417 Md. at 368‒69, 10 A.3d at 189 (quoting Dickey v. State, 404 Md. 187 , 197‒98, 946 A.2d 444, 450 (2008)).

2022The court need not grant a requested instruction if the matter is fairly covered by instructions actually given. 35 the instruction is a correct statement of law; (2) the instruction is applicable to the facts of the case; and (3) the content of the instruction was not fairly covered elsewhere in instructions actually given.’” Cost, 417 Md. at 368‒69, 10 A.3d at 189 (quoting Dickey v. State, 404 Md. 187 , 197‒98, 946 A.2d 444, 450 (2008)).

2026The court need not grant a requested instruction if the matter is fairly covered by instructions actually given.” Rule 4-325(c) has been interpreted to require trial courts to give a requested instruction to the jury when: “(1) the instruction is a correct statement of law; (2) the instruction is applicable to the facts of the case; and (3) the content of the instruction was not fairly covered elsewhere in instructions actually given.” Dickey, 404 Md. at 197 -98 (citing Thompson v. State, 393 Md. 291 , 302- 10 03 (2006)).

2008Thompson v. State, 393 Md. 291, 302-03, 901 A.2d 208, 214 (2006); Patterson v. State, 356 Md. 677, 683-84 , 741 A.2d 1119, 1122 (1999).

2021Rule 4-325(c), the court, upon a party’s request, “shall[] instruct the jury as to the applicable law.” In general, a court must give a requested instruction if “(1) the instruction is a correct statement of law; (2) the instruction is applicable to the facts of the case; and (3) the content of the instruction was not fairly covered elsewhere in instructions actually given.” Dickey v. State, 404 Md. 187, 197-98 (2008); accord Wood v. State, 436 Md. 276, 293 (2013); Bazzle v. State, 426 Md. 541, 549 (2012).

2015There are “three components that must be met to include a proposed jury instruction in the ultimate charge to .the jury: ‘(1) the instruction is a correct statement of law; (2) the instruction is applicable to the facts of the case; and (3) *623 the content of the instruction was not fairly covered elsewhere in instructions actually given.’ ” Wood v. State, 436 Md. 276, 293 , 81 A.3d 427 (2013) (quoting Dickey v. State, 404 Md. 187, 197-98 , 946 A.2d 444 (2008)); see also Gunning v. State, 347 Md. 332, 348 , 701 A.2d 374 (1997) (same).

2013"A trial court must give a requested jury instruction where (1) the instruction is a correct statement of law; (2) the instruction is applicable to the facts of the case; and (3) the content of the instruction was not fairly covered elsewhere in instructions actually given.” Carroll v. State, 428 Md. 679, 689 , 53 A.3d 1159 (2012) (citations and quotations omitted).

2013"A trial court must give a requested jury instruction where (1) the instruction is a correct statement of law; (2) the instruction is applicable to the facts of the case; and (3) the content of the instruction was not fairly covered elsewhere in instructions actually given.” Carroll v. State, 428 Md. 679, 689 , 53 A.3d 1159 (2012) (citations and quotations omitted).

2017Hall v. State, 437 Md. 534, 539 (2014). “[A] trial court must give a requested jury instruction where ‘(1) the instruction is a correct statement of law; (2) the instruction is applicable to the facts of the case; and (3) the content of the instruction was not fairly covered elsewhere in instructions actually given.’” Vielot v. State, 225 Md.

2017Hall v. State, 437 Md. 534, 539 , 87 A.3d 1287 (2014). “[A] trial court must give a requested jury instruction where ‘(1) the instruction is a correct statement of law; (2) the instruction is applicable to the facts of the case; and (3) the content of the instruction was not fairly covered elsewhere in instructions actually given.’ ” Vielot v. State, 225 Md.App. 492, 505 , 126 A.3d 143 (2015) (quoting Dickey v. State, 404 Md. 187, 197-98 , 946 A.2d 444 (2008)). “[I]f, taken as a whole, [the court’s instructions] correctly state the law, are not misleading, and cover adequately the issues raise

2017Hall v. State, 437 Md. 534, 539 (2014). “[A] trial court must give a requested jury instruction where ‘(1) the instruction is a correct statement of law; (2) the instruction is applicable to the facts of the case; and (3) the content of the instruction was not fairly covered elsewhere in instructions actually given.’” Vielot v. State, 225 Md.

2017Hall v. State, 437 Md. 534, 539 , 87 A.3d 1287 (2014). “[A] trial court must give a requested jury instruction where ‘(1) the instruction is a correct statement of law; (2) the instruction is applicable to the facts of the case; and (3) the content of the instruction was not fairly covered elsewhere in instructions actually given.’ ” Vielot v. State, 225 Md.App. 492, 505 , 126 A.3d 143 (2015) (quoting Dickey v. State, 404 Md. 187, 197-98 , 946 A.2d 444 (2008)). “[I]f, taken as a whole, [the court’s instructions] correctly state the law, are not misleading, and cover adequately the issues raise

2008Thompson v. State, 393 Md. 291, 302-03, 901 A.2d 208, 214 (2006); Patterson v. State, 356 Md. 677, 683-84 , 741 A.2d 1119, 1122 (1999).

2008Thompson v. State, 393 Md. 291, 302-03, 901 A.2d 208, 214 (2006); Patterson v. State, 356 Md. 677, 683-84 , 741 A.2d 1119, 1122 (1999).

2026We review the trial court’s overall determination that a jury instruction is not warranted “for an abuse of discretion, but the second requirement (whether the instruction is applicable in that case) is akin to assessing the sufficiency of the evidence, which requires a de novo review.” Danshin v. State, 491 Md. 520 , 532 (2025) (quoting Jarvis v. State, 487 Md. 548, 564 (2024)).

2025Jury Instructions As the next issue in this appeal, the City contends that the circuit court erred when it declined to give proposed jury instructions concerning “the law of occupational diseases.” A trial court must give a requested instruction if three requirements are satisfied: 8 Because the issue is not properly raised for appellate review by either party, we express no opinion on whether the circuit court was correct in concluding that it lacked authority to remand the matter to the Workers’ Compensation Commission. 30 “(1) the instruction is a correct statement of law; (2) the instructi

2021“However, instructions as to facts and factual inferences are normally not required.” Harris v. State, 458 Md. 370, 405 (2018). 9 An instruction concerning the destruction or concealment of evidence relates to the inferences that the jury may draw from the evidence.

2021Rule 4-325(c), the court, upon a party’s request, “shall[] instruct the jury as to the applicable law.” In general, a court must give a requested instruction if “(1) the instruction is a correct statement of law; (2) the instruction is applicable to the facts of the case; and (3) the content of the instruction was not fairly covered elsewhere in instructions actually given.” Dickey v. State, 404 Md. 187, 197-98 (2008); accord Wood v. State, 436 Md. 276, 293 (2013); Bazzle v. State, 426 Md. 541, 549 (2012).

2015There are “three components that must be met to include a proposed jury instruction in the ultimate charge to .the jury: ‘(1) the instruction is a correct statement of law; (2) the instruction is applicable to the facts of the case; and (3) *623 the content of the instruction was not fairly covered elsewhere in instructions actually given.’ ” Wood v. State, 436 Md. 276, 293 , 81 A.3d 427 (2013) (quoting Dickey v. State, 404 Md. 187, 197-98 , 946 A.2d 444 (2008)); see also Gunning v. State, 347 Md. 332, 348 , 701 A.2d 374 (1997) (same).

2015There are “three components that must be met to include a proposed jury instruction in the ultimate charge to .the jury: ‘(1) the instruction is a correct statement of law; (2) the instruction is applicable to the facts of the case; and (3) *623 the content of the instruction was not fairly covered elsewhere in instructions actually given.’ ” Wood v. State, 436 Md. 276, 293 , 81 A.3d 427 (2013) (quoting Dickey v. State, 404 Md. 187, 197-98 , 946 A.2d 444 (2008)); see also Gunning v. State, 347 Md. 332, 348 , 701 A.2d 374 (1997) (same).

2012See, e.g., Miller v. State, 185 Md.App. 293, 295 , 970 A.2d 332, 333 (2009) (“The appellant filed a timely notice of appeal, which this Court treated as an application for leave to appeal[.]”); Bagley v. Warden, 1 Md.App. 154, 158 , 228 A.2d 491, 492 (1967) (treating the document “designated by applicant as a ‘Notice of Appeal’ ” as an “application for leave to appeal”).

2012See, e.g., Miller v. State, 185 Md.App. 293, 295 , 970 A.2d 332, 333 (2009) (“The appellant filed a timely notice of appeal, which this Court treated as an application for leave to appeal[.]”); Bagley v. Warden, 1 Md.App. 154, 158 , 228 A.2d 491, 492 (1967) (treating the document “designated by applicant as a ‘Notice of Appeal’ ” as an “application for leave to appeal”).

2012See, e.g., Miller v. State, 185 Md.App. 293, 295 , 970 A.2d 332, 333 (2009) (“The appellant filed a timely notice of appeal, which this Court treated as an application for leave to appeal[.]”); Bagley v. Warden, 1 Md.App. 154, 158 , 228 A.2d 491, 492 (1967) (treating the document “designated by applicant as a ‘Notice of Appeal’ ” as an “application for leave to appeal”).

2012See, e.g., Miller v. State, 185 Md.App. 293, 295 , 970 A.2d 332, 333 (2009) (“The appellant filed a timely notice of appeal, which this Court treated as an application for leave to appeal[.]”); Bagley v. Warden, 1 Md.App. 154, 158 , 228 A.2d 491, 492 (1967) (treating the document “designated by applicant as a ‘Notice of Appeal’ ” as an “application for leave to appeal”).

2010As this Court has stated, “[tjhis rule ‘has been interpreted to require that a requested instruction be given only where there is evidence in the record to support it.’” Flores v. State, 120 Md.App. 171, 193 , 706 A.2d 628 (1998) (quoting Hof v. State, 337 Md. 581, 612 , 655 A.2d 370 (1995)); accord Dishman v. State, 352 Md. 279, 292 , 721 A.2d 699 (1998).

2010As this Court has stated, “[tjhis rule ‘has been interpreted to require that a requested instruction be given only where there is evidence in the record to support it.’” Flores v. State, 120 Md.App. 171, 193 , 706 A.2d 628 (1998) (quoting Hof v. State, 337 Md. 581, 612 , 655 A.2d 370 (1995)); accord Dishman v. State, 352 Md. 279, 292 , 721 A.2d 699 (1998).