defendant in preparing defense in Maryland

2010See Hutchins v. State, 339 Md. 466, 472-73 , 663 A.2d 1281, 1285 (1995) (noting that the purpose of Rule 4-263(b), mandating the information that the State must disclose to a criminal defendant upon request before trial, is to “assist the defendant in preparing his defense, and to protect him from surprise”) (quoting Mayson v. State, 238 Md. 283, 287 , 208 A.2d 599, 602 (1965)); Carter v. State, 319 Md. 618, 621 , 574 A.2d 305, 306 (1990) (noting that the purpose of notice provisions “is, and always has been, to inform a defendant fully of the nature of the State’s case against him in order th

2010See Hutchins v. State, 339 Md. 466, 472-73 , 663 A.2d 1281, 1285 (1995) (noting that the purpose of Rule 4-263(b), mandating the information that the State must disclose to a criminal defendant upon request before trial, is to “assist the defendant in preparing his defense, and to protect him from surprise”) (quoting Mayson v. State, 238 Md. 283, 287 , 208 A.2d 599, 602 (1965)); Carter v. State, 319 Md. 618, 621 , 574 A.2d 305, 306 (1990) (noting that the purpose of notice provisions “is, and always has been, to inform a defendant fully of the nature of the State’s case against him in order th

2012Maryland Rule 4—263(d)(8) mandates the disclosure of reports or statements of experts and obligates the State to identify the expert. 9 Rule 4-263(h) requires the State to disclose the identities of its witnesses “within 30 days after the earlier of the appearance of counsel or the first appearance of the defendant before the court pursuant to Rule 4-213[.]” The purpose of the discovery rules is to “assist the defendant in preparing his defense, and to protect him from surprise.” Hutchins v. State, 339 Md. 466, 473 , 663 A.2d 1281 (1995) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

2012Maryland Rule 4—263(d)(8) mandates the disclosure of reports or statements of experts and obligates the State to identify the expert. 9 Rule 4-263(h) requires the State to disclose the identities of its witnesses “within 30 days after the earlier of the appearance of counsel or the first appearance of the defendant before the court pursuant to Rule 4-213[.]” The purpose of the discovery rules is to “assist the defendant in preparing his defense, and to protect him from surprise.” Hutchins v. State, 339 Md. 466, 473 , 663 A.2d 1281 (1995) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

2024Moreover, the court’s sanction was reasonable when considered in relation to the discovery rules, which serve the purpose of “assist[ing] the defendant in preparing a defense and . . . protect[ing] the 28 defendant from surprise.” Thomas, 397 Md. at 567 .

2024Moreover, the court’s sanction was reasonable when considered in relation to the discovery rules, which serve the purpose of “assist[ing] the defendant in preparing a defense and . . . protect[ing] the 28 defendant from surprise.” Thomas, 397 Md. at 567 .

2007Williams v. State, 364 Md. 160, 174 , 771 A.2d 1082, 1090 (2001).

2001Williams teaches that we must assess the effect of the lie detector testimony under a harmless error standard, because doing so promotes the policy and purpose of the mandatory disclosure — “to assist the defendant in preparing his defense and prevent unfair surprise at trial.” Id. at 178, 771 A.2d 1082 (emphasis in original).

1991“The major purpose of Md.Rule 4-263 and its predecessors ... is to assist the defendant in preparing a defense and to afford protection from surprise.” Russell v. State, 69 Md.App. 554, 564-5 , 518 A.2d 1081 (1987), citing Mayson v. State, 238 Md. 283 , 208 A.2d 599 (1965) and Powell v. State, 23 Md.App. 666, 675-6 , 329 A.2d 413 (1974).

1991“The major purpose of Md.Rule 4-263 and its predecessors ... is to assist the defendant in preparing a defense and to afford protection from surprise.” Russell v. State, 69 Md.App. 554, 564-5 , 518 A.2d 1081 (1987), citing Mayson v. State, 238 Md. 283 , 208 A.2d 599 (1965) and Powell v. State, 23 Md.App. 666, 675-6 , 329 A.2d 413 (1974).

2010See Hutchins v. State, 339 Md. 466, 472-73 , 663 A.2d 1281, 1285 (1995) (noting that the purpose of Rule 4-263(b), mandating the information that the State must disclose to a criminal defendant upon request before trial, is to “assist the defendant in preparing his defense, and to protect him from surprise”) (quoting Mayson v. State, 238 Md. 283, 287 , 208 A.2d 599, 602 (1965)); Carter v. State, 319 Md. 618, 621 , 574 A.2d 305, 306 (1990) (noting that the purpose of notice provisions “is, and always has been, to inform a defendant fully of the nature of the State’s case against him in order th

2010See Hutchins v. State, 339 Md. 466, 472-73 , 663 A.2d 1281, 1285 (1995) (noting that the purpose of Rule 4-263(b), mandating the information that the State must disclose to a criminal defendant upon request before trial, is to “assist the defendant in preparing his defense, and to protect him from surprise”) (quoting Mayson v. State, 238 Md. 283, 287 , 208 A.2d 599, 602 (1965)); Carter v. State, 319 Md. 618, 621 , 574 A.2d 305, 306 (1990) (noting that the purpose of notice provisions “is, and always has been, to inform a defendant fully of the nature of the State’s case against him in order th

2010See Hutchins v. State, 339 Md. 466, 472-73 , 663 A.2d 1281, 1285 (1995) (noting that the purpose of Rule 4-263(b), mandating the information that the State must disclose to a criminal defendant upon request before trial, is to “assist the defendant in preparing his defense, and to protect him from surprise”) (quoting Mayson v. State, 238 Md. 283, 287 , 208 A.2d 599, 602 (1965)); Carter v. State, 319 Md. 618, 621 , 574 A.2d 305, 306 (1990) (noting that the purpose of notice provisions “is, and always has been, to inform a defendant fully of the nature of the State’s case against him in order th

2010See Hutchins v. State, 339 Md. 466, 472-73 , 663 A.2d 1281, 1285 (1995) (noting that the purpose of Rule 4-263(b), mandating the information that the State must disclose to a criminal defendant upon request before trial, is to “assist the defendant in preparing his defense, and to protect him from surprise”) (quoting Mayson v. State, 238 Md. 283, 287 , 208 A.2d 599, 602 (1965)); Carter v. State, 319 Md. 618, 621 , 574 A.2d 305, 306 (1990) (noting that the purpose of notice provisions “is, and always has been, to inform a defendant fully of the nature of the State’s case against him in order th

1992See Carr v. State, supra, 284 Md. at 467 , 397 A.2d 606 and Mayson v. State, 238 Md. 283, 287 , 208 A.2d 599 (1965) (discussing Maryland Rule 728, a precursor to Rule 4-263); see also Brown v. State, 85 Md.

1992See Carr v. State, supra, 284 Md. at 467 , 397 A.2d 606 and Mayson v. State, 238 Md. 283, 287 , 208 A.2d 599 (1965) (discussing Maryland Rule 728, a precursor to Rule 4-263); see also Brown v. State, 85 Md.App. 523, 528-29 , 584 A.2d 164 (1991).

1992See Carr v. State, supra, 284 Md. at 467 , 397 A.2d 606 and Mayson v. State, 238 Md. 283, 287 , 208 A.2d 599 (1965) (discussing Maryland Rule 728, a precursor to Rule 4-263); see also Brown v. State, 85 Md.

1992See Carr v. State, supra, 284 Md. at 467 , 397 A.2d 606 and Mayson v. State, 238 Md. 283, 287 , 208 A.2d 599 (1965) (discussing Maryland Rule 728, a precursor to Rule 4-263); see also Brown v. State, 85 Md.