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.
20 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1974–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
Henry v. Stategreen2 sentences2016U.S. v. Melendez, 57 F.3d 238, 241 ([2d] Cir.1995); see also Henry v. State, 324 Md. 204, 232 , 596 A.2d 1024, 1038 (1991) (finding that “[i]n determining whether reversible error occurred, an appellate court must take into account ‘(1) the closeness of the case, 2) the centrality of the issue affected by the error, and 3) the steps taken to mitigate the effects of the error’ ” (citations omitted)). 2016U.S. v. Melendez, 57 F.3d 238, 241 ([2d] Cir.1995); see also Henry v. State, 324 Md. 204, 232 , 596 A.2d 1024, 1038 (1991) (finding that “[i]n determining whether reversible error occurred, an appellate court must take into account ‘(1) the closeness of the case, 2) the centrality of the issue affected by the error, and 3) the steps taken to mitigate the effects of the error’ ” (citations omitted)). | 5 | 6 |
United States v. Jose Manuel Melendezgreen2 sentences2016U.S. v. Melendez, 57 F.3d 238, 241 ([2d] Cir.1995); see also Henry v. State, 324 Md. 204, 232 , 596 A.2d 1024, 1038 (1991) (finding that “[i]n determining whether reversible error occurred, an appellate court must take into account ‘(1) the closeness of the case, 2) the centrality of the issue affected by the error, and 3) the steps taken to mitigate the effects of the error’ ” (citations omitted)). 2011U.S. v. Melendez, 57 F.3d 238, 241 (2nd Cir.1995); see also Henry v. State, 324 Md. 204, 232 , 596 A.2d 1024, 1038 (1991) (finding that “[i]n determining whether reversible error occurred, an appellate court must take into account ‘(1) the closeness of the ease, 2) the centrality of the issue affected by the error, and 3) the steps taken to mitigate the effects of the error’” (citations omitted)). | 3 | 3 |
Wilhelm v. Stategreen2 sentences2007Mut. v. Evans, 330 Md. at 19 , 622 A.2d 103 (quoting Kosmas v. State, 316 Md. 587, 594 , 560 A.2d 1137 (1989)). *403 “The applicable test for prejudice is whether we can say, ‘with fair assurance, after pondering all that happened without stripping the erroneous actions from the whole, that the judgment was not substantially swayed by the error.’ The decisive factors are the closeness of the case, the centrality of the issue affected by the error, and the steps taken to mitigate the effects of the error.” Wilhelm v. State, 272 Md. 404, 416 , 326 A.2d 707 (1974) (citations omitted). 2007Mut. v. Evans, 330 Md. at 19 , 622 A.2d 103 (quoting Kosmas v. State, 316 Md. 587, 594 , 560 A.2d 1137 (1989)). *403 “The applicable test for prejudice is whether we can say, ‘with fair assurance, after pondering all that happened without stripping the erroneous actions from the whole, that the judgment was not substantially swayed by the error.’ The decisive factors are the closeness of the case, the centrality of the issue affected by the error, and the steps taken to mitigate the effects of the error.” Wilhelm v. State, 272 Md. 404, 416 , 326 A.2d 707 (1974) (citations omitted). | 2 | 8 |
Francina King v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2005It identified, as well, factors it determined to be decisive on the issue: the closeness of the case, id., citing Cross v. United States, 353 F.2d 454, 456 (D.C.Cir.1965); Jones v. United States, 338 F.2d 553 , 554 n. 3 (D.C.Cir.1964); the centrality of the issue affected by the error, id. citing King v. United States, 372 F.2d 383, 395 (D.C.Cir.1967); and the *39 steps taken by the court to mitigate the effects of the error. 2005It identified, as well, factors it determined to be decisive on the issue: the closeness of the case, id., citing Cross v. United States, 353 F.2d 454, 456 (D.C.Cir.1965); Jones v. United States, 338 F.2d 553 , 554 n. 3 (D.C.Cir.1964); the centrality of the issue affected by the error, id. citing King v. United States, 372 F.2d 383, 395 (D.C.Cir.1967); and the steps taken by the court to mitigate the effects of the error. | 2 | 2 |
Tyrone Gaither v. United States of America, Charles Tatum v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1994A closing argument is prejudicial to the defendant when, considering the closeness of the case, the centrality of the issue affected by the error and the steps the court took to mitigate the effects of the error, the reviewing court cannot say “ ‘with fair assurance, after pondering all that happened without stripping the erroneous action from the whole, that the judgment was not substantially swayed by the error.’” Wilhelm, 272 Md. at 416, 326 A.2d at 716, quoting Gaither v. U.S., 413 F.2d 1061, 1079 (D.C.Cir.1969), quoting Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 765 , 66 S.Ct. 1239, 1248 , 1994A closing argument is prejudicial to the defendant when, considering the closeness of the case, the centrality of the issue affected by the error and the steps the court took to mitigate the effects of the error, the reviewing court cannot say "`with fair assurance, after pondering all that happened without stripping the erroneous action from the whole, that the judgment was not substantially swayed by the error.'" Wilhelm, 272 Md. at 416 , 326 A.2d at 716 , quoting Gaither v. U.S., 413 F.2d 1061, 1079 (D.C. | 1 | 4 |
Collins v. Stategreen2 sentences2010Accord Henry v. State, 324 Md. 204, 232 , 596 A.2d 1024 (1991) (court must assess: “ 1) the closeness of the case, 2) the centrality of the issue affected by the error, and 3) the steps taken to mitigate the effects of the error’”) (quoting Collins v. State, 318 Md. 269, 280 , 568 A.2d 1 (1990)), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 972 , 112 S.Ct. 1590 , 118 L.Ed.2d 307 (1992). 2010Accord Henry v. State, 324 Md. 204, 232 , 596 A.2d 1024 (1991) (court must assess: “ 1) the closeness of the case, 2) the centrality of the issue affected by the error, and 3) the steps taken to mitigate the effects of the error’”) (quoting Collins v. State, 318 Md. 269, 280 , 568 A.2d 1 (1990)), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 972 , 112 S.Ct. 1590 , 118 L.Ed.2d 307 (1992). | 1 | 3 |
Kotteakos v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2005It identified, as well, factors it determined to be decisive on the issue: the closeness of the case, id., citing Cross v. United States, 353 F.2d 454, 456 (D.C.Cir.1965); Jones v. United States, 338 F.2d 553 , 554 n. 3 (D.C.Cir.1964); the centrality of the issue affected by the error, id. citing King v. United States, 372 F.2d 383, 395 (D.C.Cir.1967); and the *39 steps taken by the court to mitigate the effects of the error. 2005It identified, as well, factors it determined to be decisive on the issue: the closeness of the case, id., citing Cross v. United States, 353 F.2d 454, 456 (D.C.Cir.1965); Jones v. United States, 338 F.2d 553 , 554 n. 3 (D.C.Cir.1964); the centrality of the issue affected by the error, id. citing King v. United States, 372 F.2d 383, 395 (D.C.Cir.1967); and the steps taken by the court to mitigate the effects of the error. | 1 | 2 |
Harold S. Cross v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2005It identified, as well, factors it determined to be decisive on the issue: the closeness of the case, id., citing Cross v. United States, 353 F.2d 454, 456 (D.C.Cir.1965); Jones v. United States, 338 F.2d 553 , 554 n. 3 (D.C.Cir.1964); the centrality of the issue affected by the error, id. citing King v. United States, 372 F.2d 383, 395 (D.C.Cir.1967); and the *39 steps taken by the court to mitigate the effects of the error. 2005It identified, as well, factors it determined to be decisive on the issue: the closeness of the case, id., citing Cross v. United States, 353 F.2d 454, 456 (D.C.Cir.1965); Jones v. United States, 338 F.2d 553 , 554 n. 3 (D.C.Cir.1964); the centrality of the issue affected by the error, id. citing King v. United States, 372 F.2d 383, 395 (D.C.Cir.1967); and the steps taken by the court to mitigate the effects of the error. | 1 | 1 |
Walker v. Stategreen2 sentences2005See also Walker v. State, 373 Md. 360, 399, 818 A.2d 1078, 1100 (2003). 2005See also Walker v. State, 373 Md. 360, 399, 818 A.2d 1078, 1100 (2003). | 1 | 1 |
Johnson v. Stategreen2 sentences1994Applying this test, we have declared prejudicial a prosecutor’s closing argument calling attention to a criminal defendant’s right to appeal, Johnson v. State, 325 Md. 511, 517-18 , 601 A.2d 1093, 1096 (1992), and, in a capital sentencing proceeding, a prosecutor’s reference to the possibility of parole. 1994Applying this test, we have declared prejudicial a prosecutor’s closing argument calling attention to a criminal defendant’s right to appeal, Johnson v. State, 325 Md. 511, 517-18 , 601 A.2d 1093, 1096 (1992), and, in a capital sentencing proceeding, a prosecutor’s reference to the possibility of parole. | 1 | 1 |
Woodland v. Stategreen2 sentences1986See also Woodland, 62 Md.App. at 517 , 490 A.2d 286 ; Curry v. State, 54 Md.App. 250, 257 , 458 A.2d 474 (1983). 1986See also Woodland, 62 Md.App. at 517 , 490 A.2d 286 ; Curry v. State, 54 Md.App. 250, 257 , 458 A.2d 474 (1983). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Spain v. State
green
2 sentences2005We then considered the factors to be used during appellate review of the trial judge’s decision: “the severity of the remarks, the measures taken to cure any potential prejudice, and the weight of the evidence against the accused.” Spain, 386 Md. at 158-59 , 872 A.2d at 33 ; see Henry, 324 Md. at 232 , 596 A.2d at 1038 (stating that “[i]n determining whether reversible error occurred, an appellate court must take into account ‘1) the closeness of the case, 2) the centrality of the issue affected by the error, and 3) the steps taken to mitigate the effects of the error.’ Collins, 318 Md. at 280 2005We then considered the factors to be used during appellate review of the trial judge’s decision: “the severity of the remarks, the measures taken to cure any potential prejudice, and the weight of the evidence against the accused.” Spain, 386 Md. at 158-59 , 872 A.2d at 33 ; see Henry, 324 Md. at 232 , 596 A.2d at 1038 (stating that “[i]n determining whether reversible error occurred, an appellate court must take into account ‘1) the closeness of the case, 2) the centrality of the issue affected by the error, and 3) the steps taken to mitigate the effects of the error.’ Collins, 318 Md. at 280 | 2 | 2005–2011 |
Wise v. State
green
2 sentences2011“In determining whether reversible error occurred, we must take into account the closeness of the case, the centrality of the issue affected by the error, and the steps taken to mitigate the *85 effects of the error, if any.” Wise v. State, 132 Md.App. 127, 142 , 751 A.2d 24 (2000) (citation omitted). 2011“In determining whether reversible error occurred, we must take into account the closeness of the case, the centrality of the issue affected by the error, and the steps taken to mitigate the *85 effects of the error, if any.” Wise v. State, 132 Md.App. 127, 142 , 751 A.2d 24 (2000) (citation omitted). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
MEDICAL MUTUAL LIABILITY INS. SOC. OF MARYLAND v. Evans
green
2 sentences2007Mut. v. Evans, 330 Md. at 19 , 622 A.2d 103 (quoting Kosmas v. State, 316 Md. 587, 594 , 560 A.2d 1137 (1989)). *403 “The applicable test for prejudice is whether we can say, ‘with fair assurance, after pondering all that happened without stripping the erroneous actions from the whole, that the judgment was not substantially swayed by the error.’ The decisive factors are the closeness of the case, the centrality of the issue affected by the error, and the steps taken to mitigate the effects of the error.” Wilhelm v. State, 272 Md. 404, 416 , 326 A.2d 707 (1974) (citations omitted). 2007Mut. v. Evans, 330 Md. at 19 , 622 A.2d 103 (quoting Kosmas v. State, 316 Md. 587, 594 , 560 A.2d 1137 (1989)). *403 “The applicable test for prejudice is whether we can say, ‘with fair assurance, after pondering all that happened without stripping the erroneous actions from the whole, that the judgment was not substantially swayed by the error.’ The decisive factors are the closeness of the case, the centrality of the issue affected by the error, and the steps taken to mitigate the effects of the error.” Wilhelm v. State, 272 Md. 404, 416 , 326 A.2d 707 (1974) (citations omitted). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Kosmas v. State
green
2 sentences2007Mut. v. Evans, 330 Md. at 19 , 622 A.2d 103 (quoting Kosmas v. State, 316 Md. 587, 594 , 560 A.2d 1137 (1989)). *403 “The applicable test for prejudice is whether we can say, ‘with fair assurance, after pondering all that happened without stripping the erroneous actions from the whole, that the judgment was not substantially swayed by the error.’ The decisive factors are the closeness of the case, the centrality of the issue affected by the error, and the steps taken to mitigate the effects of the error.” Wilhelm v. State, 272 Md. 404, 416 , 326 A.2d 707 (1974) (citations omitted). 2007Mut. v. Evans, 330 Md. at 19 , 622 A.2d 103 (quoting Kosmas v. State, 316 Md. 587, 594 , 560 A.2d 1137 (1989)). *403 “The applicable test for prejudice is whether we can say, ‘with fair assurance, after pondering all that happened without stripping the erroneous actions from the whole, that the judgment was not substantially swayed by the error.’ The decisive factors are the closeness of the case, the centrality of the issue affected by the error, and the steps taken to mitigate the effects of the error.” Wilhelm v. State, 272 Md. 404, 416 , 326 A.2d 707 (1974) (citations omitted). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Kenneth Jones v. United States of America, Willis Campbell, Jr. v. United States
green
2 sentences2005It identified, as well, factors it determined to be decisive on the issue: the closeness of the case, id., citing Cross v. United States, 353 F.2d 454, 456 (D.C.Cir.1965); Jones v. United States, 338 F.2d 553 , 554 n. 3 (D.C.Cir.1964); the centrality of the issue affected by the error, id. citing King v. United States, 372 F.2d 383, 395 (D.C.Cir.1967); and the *39 steps taken by the court to mitigate the effects of the error. 2005It identified, as well, factors it determined to be decisive on the issue: the closeness of the case, id., citing Cross v. United States, 353 F.2d 454, 456 (D.C.Cir.1965); Jones v. United States, 338 F.2d 553 , 554 n. 3 (D.C.Cir.1964); the centrality of the issue affected by the error, id. citing King v. United States, 372 F.2d 383, 395 (D.C.Cir.1967); and the *39 steps taken by the court to mitigate the effects of the error. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Hagez v. State
green
2 sentences2005This Court has pointed out three factors that “must be considered in order to determine whether a prosecutor’s remarks are prejudicial to the accused[ ] ... (1) the closeness of the case; (2) the centrality of the issue affected by the error; and (3) the steps taken by the trial judge to mitigate the effects of the remarks on the jury.” Hagez v. State, 110 Md.App. 194, 226 , 676 A.2d 992 (1996). 2005This Court has pointed out three factors that “must be considered in order to determine whether a prosecutor’s remarks are prejudicial to the accused[ ] ... (1) the closeness of the case; (2) the centrality of the issue affected by the error; and (3) the steps taken by the trial judge to mitigate the effects of the remarks on the jury.” Hagez v. State, 110 Md.App. 194, 226 , 676 A.2d 992 (1996). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Marks v. State
green
2 sentences1996Marks, 84 Md.App. at 291 , 578 A.2d 828 . 1996Marks, 84 Md.App. at 291 , 578 A.2d 828 . | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Curry v. State
green
2 sentences1986See also Woodland, 62 Md.App. at 517 , 490 A.2d 286 ; Curry v. State, 54 Md.App. 250, 257 , 458 A.2d 474 (1983). 1986See also Woodland, 62 Md.App. at 517 , 490 A.2d 286 ; Curry v. State, 54 Md.App. 250, 257 , 458 A.2d 474 (1983). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Beard v. State
green
1 sentence1985In addition, the comments of the prosecutor were a “quick passing reference in the context of the overall argument.” Beard v. State, supra. [42 Md.App.] at 290, 399 A.2d 1383 . | 1 | 1985–1985 |
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.