propriety instruction in Maryland

2019The issue decided in Kennelly concerned another portion of the trial court's instructions on negligence - the propriety of an instruction that "an unsuccessful result following medical treatment is not evidence of negligence." 337 Md. at 569 -70 , 654 A.2d 1335 .

2019The issue decided in Kennelly concerned another portion of the trial court's instructions on negligence - the propriety of an instruction that "an unsuccessful result following medical treatment is not evidence of negligence." 337 Md. at 569 -70 , 654 A.2d 1335 .

2021As outlined above, in that case, the intermediate appellate court had stressed that an anti-CSI effect instruction should be given in conjunction with a reference to the prosecution’s burden of proof 17 In Pickett, the Court held that a party had preserved an objection to the absence of an instruction on the “avoidable consequences” rule of damages in contract actions when counsel simply stated “[a]nd [proposed jury instruction number] ten, unavoidable (sic) consequences.” The Court reasoned that the reference to “unavoidable consequences,” coupled with a reading of the proffered instruction,

2018Allen , 204 Md.

2018In Robinson v. State , 315 Md. 309 , 554 A.2d 395 (1989), the defendant was convicted of an offense related to his use of a stolen car.

2018In Robinson v. State , 315 Md. 309 , 554 A.2d 395 (1989), the defendant was convicted of an offense related to his use of a stolen car.

2018In Thompson , id. at 313 , 901 A.2d at 221 , the alternate explanation for the defendant's flight was that he had eighty-six vials of crack cocaine on his person at the time of his arrest-evidence of a crime that would have been highly prejudicial to the defendant.

2018In Thompson , id. at 313 , 901 A.2d at 221 , the alternate explanation for the defendant's flight was that he had eighty-six vials of crack cocaine on his person at the time of his arrest-evidence of a crime that would have been highly prejudicial to the defendant.

2018Evans , 174 Md.

2010Bereano v. State Ethics Comm’n, 403 Md. 716 , 944 A.2d 538 (2008), is instructive in assessing the propriety of the instruction.

2010Bereano v. State Ethics Comm’n, 403 Md. 716 , 944 A.2d 538 (2008), is instructive in assessing the propriety of the instruction.

2006Maryland Rule 4-215(b) governs the waiver of yet another fundamental right of a criminal defendant, the right to counsel, and also contains language similar to Rule 4-246(b). [5] As with a waiver of a jury trial, in determining the propriety of a waiver of counsel, this Court has noted that "courts indulge every reasonable presumption against waiver of fundamental constitutional rights and . . . we do not presume acquiescence in the loss of fundamental rights," and that "a waiver is . . . an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege." Johnson v. State, 355 Md. 420

2006Maryland Rule 4 — 215(b) governs the waiver of yet another fundamental right of a criminal defendant, the right to counsel, and also contains language similar to Rule 4 — 246(b). 5 As with a waiver of a jury trial, in determining the propriety of a waiver of counsel, this Court has noted that “courts indulge every reasonable presumption against waiver of fundamental constitutional rights and ... we do not presume acquiescence in the loss of fundamental rights,” and that “a waiver is ... an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege.” Johnson v. State, 355 Md. 420,

2002The appellate court will then be in a position to perform its function of making an independent constitutional appraisal of the propriety of the hearing court’s rulings.” Id. at 415 , 624 A.2d at 538-39 .

2002The appellate court will then be in a position to perform its function of making an independent constitutional appraisal of the propriety of the hearing court’s rulings.” Id. at 415 , 624 A.2d at 538-39 .

2001Thus, the propriety of the waiver order is subject to review on the appeal from the final judgment in the criminal trial of the *332 substantive offense.” Id. at 12-13 , 325 A.2d at 115 .

2001Thus, the propriety of the waiver order is subject to review on the appeal from the final judgment in the criminal trial of the *332 substantive offense.” Id. at 12-13 , 325 A.2d at 115 .

1995The court recognized, however, that the instruction that was given “goes beyond saying that no pre sumption of negligence arises from the mere happening of an accident; it says that the mere happening of an accident is not evidence.” Id. (emphasis added).

1995In assessing the propriety of this instruction, the court stated the ‘Veil settled [principle] that no presumption or inference of negligence arises from the bare happening of an accident or from the mere fact that an injury has been sustained.” Green, 223 N.E.2d at 646 .

1994For instance, in Larkin v. Smith, 183 Md. 274 , 37 A.2d 340 (1944), we accepted the propriety of an instruction that apprised the jury of the Commission’s prior decision.

1994For instance, in Larkin v. Smith, 183 Md. 274 , 37 A.2d 340 (1944), we accepted the propriety of an instruction that apprised the jury of the Commission’s prior decision.

1993See McMillian v. State, 325 Md. at 281 , 600 A.2d 430 ; Riddick v. State, 319 Md. 180, 183 , 571 A.2d 1239 (1990); Harris v. State, 303 Md. 685, 697 , 496 A.2d 1074 (1985).

1993See McMillian v. State, 325 Md. at 281 , 600 A.2d 430 ; Riddick v. State, 319 Md. 180, 183 , 571 A.2d 1239 (1990); Harris v. State, 303 Md. 685, 697 , 496 A.2d 1074 (1985).

1993See McMillian v. State, 325 Md. at 281 , 600 A.2d 430 ; Riddick v. State, 319 Md. 180, 183 , 571 A.2d 1239 (1990); Harris v. State, 303 Md. 685, 697 , 496 A.2d 1074 (1985).

1993See McMillian v. State, 325 Md. at 281 , 600 A.2d 430 ; Riddick v. State, 319 Md. 180, 183 , 571 A.2d 1239 (1990); Harris v. State, 303 Md. 685, 697 , 496 A.2d 1074 (1985).

1987We place principal reliance on our decision in Dempsey v. State, 277 Md. 134 , 355 A.2d 455 (1976), where we addressed the propriety of an instruction advising the jury that the court had made a preliminary determination of the voluntariness of the defendant’s confession.

1987We place principal reliance on our decision in Dempsey v. State, 277 Md. 134 , 355 A.2d 455 (1976), where we addressed the propriety of an instruction advising the jury that the court had made a preliminary determination of the voluntariness of the defendant’s confession.

1985The Court explained the propriety of the instruction: “[I]f the jury was not to be misled into thinking that its verdict would be in addition to what had already been received by the workman, it was necessary that it be told that the insurer would be reimbursed from the verdict, if large enough.” *73 Id. at 158 , 195 A.2d 703 (footnote omitted).

1985The Court explained the propriety of the instruction: “[I]f the jury was not to be misled into thinking that its verdict would be in addition to what had already been received by the workman, it was necessary that it be told that the insurer would be reimbursed from the verdict, if large enough.” *73 Id. at 158 , 195 A.2d 703 (footnote omitted).

1980App. 58, 63 , 299 A.2d 873 : "Instances will arise where an obviously incompetent defendant attempts to withdraw an insanity plea which his counsel previously had *125 entered in his behalf. ...

1980As to the propriety of defense counsel’s urging of incompetency over the appellant’s express and vigorous objections, we are guided both by inherent logic and the reasoning of Judge Scanlan for this Court in White v. State, 17 Md.

1971From the lower court’s remarks defense counsel apparently fully argued to the jury that since Braxton had the reputation of being endowed with such traits it woiild be unlikely that he would commit armed robbery, but the court refused to instruct the jury at all on the point. 5 In Noel v. State, 202 Md. 247, 252 , the Court said that the propriety of an instruction “as to the consideration and weight” to be given the testimony of character witnesses was generally recognized.

1971The rule as it is applied today is substantially the same as when it was formulated in 1911 by the decision in Luery v. State, 116 Md. 284 , in which the historical background as well as the reasoning behind the rule were set forth.

1953Edgington v. United States, 164 U. S. 361 , 17 S. Ct. 72 , 41 L.

1953Edgington v. United States, 164 U. S. 361 , 17 S. Ct. 72 , 41 L.

1921The propriety of such an instruction has long been recognized in this 'State (Johnson v. Harvey, 30 Md. 259), and the proposition submitted was a, cor *376 rect statement of the law, but the defendant contended that there was no evidence in the case to support the hypothesis that Fidler was employed to purchase all of the tomatoes in dispute; or that Fidler had purchased all of such tomatoes on the pavement in Philadelphia; or that all of such tomatoes were delivered to or accepted by Fidler, and specially •excepted to the prayer on that ground.

1917The propriety of such an instruction, and the validity of the statute on which it is based have.been sustained in the recent cases of Bonaparte v. Baltimore, supra, and Cahill v. Baltimore, 129 Md. 17 . *435 The only other exception to be considered relates to the admission of testimony that as a result of the appellant’s report to the Appeal Tax Court as to the value of the property involved in this proceeding, which he estimated for taxation purposes at a much lower amount than that stated in his testimony, the assessment of the property was reduced below the valuation which the assessors ha

1917The propriety of such an instruction, and the validity of the statute on which it is based have.been sustained in the recent cases of Bonaparte v. Baltimore, supra, and Cahill v. Baltimore, 129 Md. 17 . *435 The only other exception to be considered relates to the admission of testimony that as a result of the appellant’s report to the Appeal Tax Court as to the value of the property involved in this proceeding, which he estimated for taxation purposes at a much lower amount than that stated in his testimony, the assessment of the property was reduced below the valuation which the assessors ha