effects error in Maryland

19 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1974–2025 4 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.

Followed or applied (10)

Case	Followed	Cited
Henry v. Stategreen md · 1991 · cited in 6 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2000–2016 2 sentences 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)). 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 Melendezgreen ca2 · 1995 · cited in 3 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2005–2016 2 sentences 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)). 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. Stategreen md · 1974 · cited in 6 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 1990–2009 2 sentences 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). 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	6
Collins v. Stategreen md · 1990 · cited in 3 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 1991–2010 2 sentences 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). 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
Tyrone Gaither v. United States of America, Charles Tatum v. United Statesgreen cadc · 1969 · cited in 3 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 1974–2005 2 sentences 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. 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.Cir.1969), quoting Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 765 , 66 S.Ct. 1239, 1248 ,	1	3
Kotteakos v. United Statesgreen scotus · 1946 · cited in 2 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 1994–2005 2 sentences 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. 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	2
Harold S. Cross v. United Statesgreen cadc · 1965 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005 2 sentences 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. 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	1
Francina King v. United Statesgreen cadc · 1967 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005 2 sentences 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. 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	1
Walker v. Stategreen md · 2003 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005 2 sentences 2005See 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. Stategreen md · 1992 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 1994–1994 2 sentences 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. 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

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (8)

Case	Cited	Years
Weaver v. Massachusetts green scotus · 2017 2 sentences 2025The Court divided structural errors into “at least” three types: (1) “if the right at issue is not designed to protect the defendant from erroneous conviction but instead protects some other 39 interest”; 30 (2) “if the effects of the error are simply too hard to measure”; 31 and (3) “if the error always results in fundamental unfairness.” 32 Id. at 295-96 . 2023The Court outlined “three broad rationales” that lead to an error being structural: the right at issue serves an interest other than protecting against erroneous conviction; “the effects of the error are simply too hard to measure”; and “the error always results in fundamental unfairness.” Id. at 295-96 .	4	2023–2025
Spain v. State green md · 2005 2 sentences 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 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
Long v. Maryland State Department of Public Safety & Correctional Services green mdctspecapp · 2016 1 sentence 2020Nevertheless, completing the effects analysis, the lack of a scienter requirement in CP §§ 11-701(o), (p), and (q) also favors the State’s position, as all “sex offenders, without regard to the offenders’ state of mind, must comply.” Long, 230 Md.	1	2020–2020
Hanus v. Sodoro green scotus · 1992 1 sentence 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	2010–2010
Lake Country, Inc. v. Olsen green scotus · 1992 1 sentence 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	2010–2010
MEDICAL MUTUAL LIABILITY INS. SOC. OF MARYLAND v. Evans green md · 1993 2 sentences 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). 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 md · 1989 2 sentences 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). 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 cadc · 1964 2 sentences 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. 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	2005–2005

Where else courts name it

CA 67 (1958–2026) DC 67 (1972–2023) MD 19 (1974–2025) TX 18 (1932–2025) DE 16 (1981–2022) PA 13 (1927–2026) IL 13 (1969–2026) OH 12 (1963–2026) NY 12 (1930–2025) IN 10 (1980–2024) WA 10 (1937–2024) LA 9 (1954–2017) MN 9 (1934–2016) NV 8 (1913–2025) CO 8 (1994–2025) VT 6 (1999–2025) IA 6 (1990–2024) CT 6 (1997–2022) UT 6 (1943–2025) MA 6 (1988–2026) SC 6 (1999–2025) VA 5 (2003–2016) MO 5 (2004–2020) FL 5 (1986–2022) GA 4 (1988–2024) OR 4 (1985–2020) AZ 4 (1963–2024) MI 4 (1980–2022) KS 3 (1984–2006) WI 3 (1890–2006) NH 2 (1993–2025) WY 2 (2021–2024) AL 2 (2003–2003) TN 2 (1981–2026) HI 2 (2005–2023) ND 2 (1931–2015) NJ 2 (1987–1999)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check