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.
21 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1957–2013 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 |
|---|---|---|
Brown v. Stategreen2 sentences2013See Finke v. State, 56 Md.App. 450, 496-97 , 468 A.2d 353 (1983) (testimony that was inadmissible in the first trial because of procedural failure rather than substantively inadmissible was admissible in retrial when the trial court corrected procedural error); see also Brown v. State, 153 Md.App. 544, 553 , 837 A.2d 956 (2003) (videotape testimony of appellant from his first trial admissible in his second trial even though appellant did not take the stand in his own defense during that trial). 2013See Finke v. State, 56 Md.App. 450, 496-97 , 468 A.2d 353 (1983) (testimony that was inadmissible in the first trial because of procedural failure rather than substantively inadmissible was admissible in retrial when the trial court corrected procedural error); see also Brown v. State, 153 Md.App. 544, 553 , 837 A.2d 956 (2003) (videotape testimony of appellant from his first trial admissible in his second trial even though appellant did not take the stand in his own defense during that trial). | 1 | 1 |
Finke v. Stategreen2 sentences2013See Finke v. State, 56 Md.App. 450, 496-97 , 468 A.2d 353 (1983) (testimony that was inadmissible in the first trial because of procedural failure rather than substantively inadmissible was admissible in retrial when the trial court corrected procedural error); see also Brown v. State, 153 Md.App. 544, 553 , 837 A.2d 956 (2003) (videotape testimony of appellant from his first trial admissible in his second trial even though appellant did not take the stand in his own defense during that trial). 2013See Finke v. State, 56 Md.App. 450, 496-97 , 468 A.2d 353 (1983) (testimony that was inadmissible in the first trial because of procedural failure rather than substantively inadmissible was admissible in retrial when the trial court corrected procedural error); see also Brown v. State, 153 Md.App. 544, 553 , 837 A.2d 956 (2003) (videotape testimony of appellant from his first trial admissible in his second trial even though appellant did not take the stand in his own defense during that trial). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Logangreen2 sentences2011That is because, at the trial level, Morris took the stand in his own defense and gave testimony “virtually identical to the portion of [Williams’s] statement that he is complaining about.” Relying principally upon Tichnell v. State, 287 Md. 695, 715-16 , 415 A.2d 830, 841 (1980), the intermediate appellate court observed that a defendant “waive[s] his objection to the admission of ... contested evidence,” where he challenges initially the admission of certain evidence, but subsequently “confirm[s],” through his “own testimony,” “the evidence to which he had previously objected____” Morris cou 2011That is because, at the trial level, Morris took the stand in his own defense and gave testimony “virtually identical to the portion of [Williams’s] statement that he is complaining about.” Relying principally upon Tichnell v. State, 287 Md. 695, 715-16 , 415 A.2d 830, 841 (1980), the intermediate appellate court observed that a defendant “waive[s] his objection to the admission of ... contested evidence,” where he challenges initially the admission of certain evidence, but subsequently “confirm[s],” through his “own testimony,” “the evidence to which he had previously objected____” Morris cou | 1 | 1 |
Tichnell v. Stategreen2 sentences2011That is because, at the trial level, Morris took the stand in his own defense and gave testimony “virtually identical to the portion of [Williams’s] statement that he is complaining about.” Relying principally upon Tichnell v. State, 287 Md. 695, 715-16 , 415 A.2d 830, 841 (1980), the intermediate appellate court observed that a defendant “waive[s] his objection to the admission of ... contested evidence,” where he challenges initially the admission of certain evidence, but subsequently “confirm[s],” through his “own testimony,” “the evidence to which he had previously objected____” Morris cou 2011That is because, at the trial level, Morris took the stand in his own defense and gave testimony “virtually identical to the portion of [Williams’s] statement that he is complaining about.” Relying principally upon Tichnell v. State, 287 Md. 695, 715-16 , 415 A.2d 830, 841 (1980), the intermediate appellate court observed that a defendant “waive[s] his objection to the admission of ... contested evidence,” where he challenges initially the admission of certain evidence, but subsequently “confirm[s],” through his “own testimony,” “the evidence to which he had previously objected____” Morris cou | 1 | 1 |
State v. McKenziegreen2 sentences1983See State v. McKenzie, 17 Md.App. 563, 576 , 303 A.2d 406 (1973), and McClain v. State, 10 Md.App. 106, 114 , 268 A.2d 572 (1970). 1983See State v. McKenzie, 17 Md.App. 563, 576 , 303 A.2d 406 (1973), and McClain v. State, 10 Md.App. 106, 114 , 268 A.2d 572 (1970). | 1 | 1 |
Minor v. Stategreen1 sentence1969Minor v. State, 6 Md. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bartram v. State
green
2 sentences1992As observed in this regard in Bartram v. State, supra, at 33 Md.App. 175 , 364 A.2d 1119 , “The blood, however, must indeed be hot and, generally speaking, only the hot-blooded killer can attest to that.” The appellant here took the stand in his own defense and testified unequivocally that he shot the victim not in hot-blooded rage, but because he feared that if he did not kill in self-defense, he would be killed or grievously wounded himself. 1990In Cunningham we held that: As observed in this regard in Bartram v. State, supra, at 33 Md.App. [115] 175, 364 A.2d 1119 [1976], “The blood, however, must indeed be hot and, generally speaking, only the hot-blooded killer can attest to that.” The appellant here took the stand in his own defense and testified unequivocally that he shot the victim not in hot-blooded rage, but because he feared that if he did not kill in self-defense, he would be killed or grievously wounded himself. | 3 | 1984–1992 |
Roviaro v. United States
green
2 sentences1992Roviaro recognized, 353 U.S. at 64 , 77 S.Ct. at 629 , that the only other option was to require the accused to take the stand in his own defense, an option which severely impacted upon the accused's Fifth Amendment right not to testify. 2 . 1992Roviaro recognized, 353 U.S. at 64 , 77 S.Ct. at 629 , that the only other option was to require the accused to take the stand in his own defense, an option which severely impacted upon the accused's Fifth Amendment right not to testify. 2 . | 2 | 1990–1992 |
Bohnert v. State
green
2 sentences2007Bohnert took the stand in his own defense and “categorically denied the allegations.” Id. at 273 , 539 A.2d at 660 . 2007Bohnert took the stand in his own defense and “categorically denied the allegations.” Id. at 273 , 539 A.2d at 660 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Gross
green
2 sentences2002His taking of the stand was a desperate but necessary effort to put some kind of exculpatory spin on that evidence.” Gross, 134 Md.App. at 541-42 , 760 A.2d at 732 . 2002His taking of the stand was a desperate but necessary effort to put some kind of exculpatory spin on that evidence.” Gross, 134 Md.App. at 541-42 , 760 A.2d at 732 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
State v. Giddens
green
1 sentence2000Id. at 208-09, 642 A.2d 870 . | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Ameen v. State
green
2 sentences1998Ameen, 186 N.W.2d at 209-10 . 1998Ameen, 186 N.W.2d at 209-10 . | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Cunningham v. State
green
2 sentences1994In Cunningham v. State, 58 Md.App. 249 , 473 A.2d 40 (1984) , the appellant “took the stand in his own defense and testified unequivocally that he shot the victim ... because he feared that if he did not kill in self-defense, he would be killed or grievously wounded himself.” Id. at 259 , 473 A.2d 40 . 1994In Cunningham v. State, 58 Md.App. 249 , 473 A.2d 40 (1984) , the appellant “took the stand in his own defense and testified unequivocally that he shot the victim ... because he feared that if he did not kill in self-defense, he would be killed or grievously wounded himself.” Id. at 259 , 473 A.2d 40 . | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Bonds v. State
green
2 sentences1983Bonds v. State, 51 Md.App. 102, 106-108 , 442 A.2d 572 (1982). *34 Character Evidence The appellant did not take the stand in his own defense. 1983Bonds v. State, 51 Md.App. 102, 106-108 , 442 A.2d 572 (1982). *34 Character Evidence The appellant did not take the stand in his own defense. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
McClain v. State
green
2 sentences1983See State v. McKenzie, 17 Md.App. 563, 576 , 303 A.2d 406 (1973), and McClain v. State, 10 Md.App. 106, 114 , 268 A.2d 572 (1970). 1983See State v. McKenzie, 17 Md.App. 563, 576 , 303 A.2d 406 (1973), and McClain v. State, 10 Md.App. 106, 114 , 268 A.2d 572 (1970). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
People v. Rolston
green
1 sentence1973In the latter situations, particularly one such as in People v. Rolston, 187 N.W.2d 454 (Mich.), the court held it completely improper for the state to recite at trial a long series of questions going into every detail of the crime, whereto the defendant had remained absolutely mute from the beginning of the interrogation session to the end. | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Sellman v. State
green
2 sentences1966After Green had taken the stand in his own defense, the court, in finding both Green and Boyd guilty of manslaughter, referred to portions of Hamilton’s statement to the police. *157 “Although the general rule is that a party may not impeach his own witness by proof of prior statements which are inconsistent with, or contradictory to, his testimony at the trial, it is well recognized in this State that where a party satisfies the court that he has been taken by surprise, and that the testimony is contrary to what he had a right to expect, it is within the sound discretion of the trial court to 1966After Green had taken the stand in his own defense, the court, in finding both Green and Boyd guilty of manslaughter, referred to portions of Hamilton’s statement to the police. *157 “Although the general rule is that a party may not impeach his own witness by proof of prior statements which are inconsistent with, or contradictory to, his testimony at the trial, it is well recognized in this State that where a party satisfies the court that he has been taken by surprise, and that the testimony is contrary to what he had a right to expect, it is within the sound discretion of the trial court to | 1 | 1966–1966 |
Hall v. Warden of Maryland Penitentiary
green
2 sentences1965Hall v. Warden, 224 Md. 662 , 168 A. 2d 373 . 1965Hall v. Warden, 224 Md. 662 , 168 A. 2d 373 . | 1 | 1965–1965 |
Piles v. State
green
2 sentences1964Cousins v. State, 230 Md. 2 , 185 A. 2d 488 ; Piles v. State, 233 Md. 487 , 197 A. 2d 238 . 1964Cousins v. State, 230 Md. 2 , 185 A. 2d 488 ; Piles v. State, 233 Md. 487 , 197 A. 2d 238 . | 1 | 1964–1964 |
Cousins v. State
green
2 sentences1964Cousins v. State, 230 Md. 2 , 185 A. 2d 488 ; Piles v. State, 233 Md. 487 , 197 A. 2d 238 . 1964Cousins v. State, 230 Md. 2 , 185 A. 2d 488 ; Piles v. State, 233 Md. 487 , 197 A. 2d 238 . | 1 | 1964–1964 |
Brown v. State
green
2 sentences1962Gladden v. State, 227 Md. 266, 176 A. 2d 219 ; Brown v. State, 223 Md. 401 , 164 A. 2d 722 . 1962Gladden v. State, 227 Md. 266, 176 A. 2d 219 ; Brown v. State, 223 Md. 401 , 164 A. 2d 722 . | 1 | 1962–1962 |
Gladden v. State
green
2 sentences1962Gladden v. State, 227 Md. 266, 176 A. 2d 219 ; Brown v. State, 223 Md. 401 , 164 A. 2d 722 . 1962Gladden v. State, 227 Md. 266, 176 A. 2d 219 ; Brown v. State, 223 Md. 401 , 164 A. 2d 722 . | 1 | 1962–1962 |
Murphy v. State
green
2 sentences1957Murphy v. State, 184 Md. 70 , 40 A.2d 239 ." In this case it is evident that the defendant's attorney did not know that the defendant had been in Crownsville until after the pleas were filed and until after defendant took the stand in his own defense. 1957Murphy v. State, 184 Md. 70 , 40 A.2d 239 ." In this case it is evident that the defendant's attorney did not know that the defendant had been in Crownsville until after the pleas were filed and until after defendant took the stand in his own defense. | 1 | 1957–1957 |
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.