proposed jury instruction in Maryland

2015There are “three components that must be met to include a proposed jury instruction in the ultimate charge to .the jury: ‘(1) the instruction is a correct statement of law; (2) the instruction is applicable to the facts of the case; and (3) *623 the content of the instruction was not fairly covered elsewhere in instructions actually given.’ ” Wood v. State, 436 Md. 276, 293 , 81 A.3d 427 (2013) (quoting Dickey v. State, 404 Md. 187, 197-98 , 946 A.2d 444 (2008)); see also Gunning v. State, 347 Md. 332, 348 , 701 A.2d 374 (1997) (same).

2015There are “three components that must be met to include a proposed jury instruction in the ultimate charge to .the jury: ‘(1) the instruction is a correct statement of law; (2) the instruction is applicable to the facts of the case; and (3) *623 the content of the instruction was not fairly covered elsewhere in instructions actually given.’ ” Wood v. State, 436 Md. 276, 293 , 81 A.3d 427 (2013) (quoting Dickey v. State, 404 Md. 187, 197-98 , 946 A.2d 444 (2008)); see also Gunning v. State, 347 Md. 332, 348 , 701 A.2d 374 (1997) (same).

2013Sidbury v. State, 414 Md. 180, 186 , 994 A.2d 948, 951 (2010).

2013Sidbury v. State, 414 Md. 180, 186 , 994 A.2d 948, 951 (2010).

2018We review whether a trial court abused its discretion in declining to offer a jury instruction using "well-defined standards." Cost v. State , 417 Md. 360 , 368, 10 A.3d 184 (2010). *142 A trial court is required to give a proposed jury instruction when: (1) the requested instruction is a correct statement of the law; (2) the evidence supports giving the instruction; and (3) the substance of the instruction is not otherwise fairly covered by instructions that are given.

2018We review whether a trial court abused its discretion in declining to offer a jury instruction using "well-defined standards." Cost v. State , 417 Md. 360 , 368, 10 A.3d 184 (2010). *142 A trial court is required to give a proposed jury instruction when: (1) the requested instruction is a correct statement of the law; (2) the evidence supports giving the instruction; and (3) the substance of the instruction is not otherwise fairly covered by instructions that are given.

2015There are “three components that must be met to include a proposed jury instruction in the ultimate charge to .the jury: ‘(1) the instruction is a correct statement of law; (2) the instruction is applicable to the facts of the case; and (3) *623 the content of the instruction was not fairly covered elsewhere in instructions actually given.’ ” Wood v. State, 436 Md. 276, 293 , 81 A.3d 427 (2013) (quoting Dickey v. State, 404 Md. 187, 197-98 , 946 A.2d 444 (2008)); see also Gunning v. State, 347 Md. 332, 348 , 701 A.2d 374 (1997) (same).

2015There are “three components that must be met to include a proposed jury instruction in the ultimate charge to .the jury: ‘(1) the instruction is a correct statement of law; (2) the instruction is applicable to the facts of the case; and (3) *623 the content of the instruction was not fairly covered elsewhere in instructions actually given.’ ” Wood v. State, 436 Md. 276, 293 , 81 A.3d 427 (2013) (quoting Dickey v. State, 404 Md. 187, 197-98 , 946 A.2d 444 (2008)); see also Gunning v. State, 347 Md. 332, 348 , 701 A.2d 374 (1997) (same).

2011When we review a trial court’s ruling to grant or decline a proposed jury instruction, “we must determine whether the requested instruction was a correct statement of the law; whether it was applicable under the facts of the case; and whether it was fairly covered in the instructions actually given.” Gunning v. State, 347 Md. 332, 348 , 701 A.2d 374, 381 (1997) (quoting Grandison v. State, 341 Md. 175, 211 , 670 A.2d 398, 415 (1995), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1027 , 117 S.Ct. 581 , 136 L.Ed.2d 512 (1996)).

2011When we review a trial court’s ruling to grant or decline a proposed jury instruction, “we must determine whether the requested instruction was a correct statement of the law; whether it was applicable under the facts of the case; and whether it was fairly covered in the instructions actually given.” Gunning v. State, 347 Md. 332, 348 , 701 A.2d 374, 381 (1997) (quoting Grandison v. State, 341 Md. 175, 211 , 670 A.2d 398, 415 (1995), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 1027 , 117 S.Ct. 581 , 136 L.Ed.2d 512 (1996)).

2025Contrary to the City’s argument, Blake v. Bethlehem Steel Co. does not state that “the mere aggravation of a disease not occupational in character is insufficient to establish compensability.” The correct quotation is: “‘The mere aggravation of a disease not occupational in character is insufficient to establish an occupational disease.’” Blake v. Bethlehem Steel Co., 225 Md. at 200-01 (emphasis added) (quoting Smith v. Sports Room Supper Club, 181 N.Y.S.2d 130, 132 (N.Y.

2025Contrary to the City’s argument, Blake v. Bethlehem Steel Co. does not state that “the mere aggravation of a disease not occupational in character is insufficient to establish compensability.” The correct quotation is: “‘The mere aggravation of a disease not occupational in character is insufficient to establish an occupational disease.’” Blake v. Bethlehem Steel Co., 225 Md. at 200-01 (emphasis added) (quoting Smith v. Sports Room Supper Club, 181 N.Y.S.2d 130, 132 (N.Y.

2024Accordingly, although we review a judge’s decision to accept or reject a proposed jury instruction pertaining to inferences to be drawn from the evidence for abuse of discretion, see Harris, 458 Md. at 405 ; Hall v. State, 437 Md. 534, 539 (2014), “[t]he threshold determination of whether the evidence is sufficient to generate the desired instruction is a question of law” and thus is reviewed de novo, Bazzle, 426 Md. at 550 (quoting Dishman v. State, 352 Md. 279, 292-93 (1998)).

2024Accordingly, although we review a judge’s decision to accept or reject a proposed jury instruction pertaining to inferences to be drawn from the evidence for abuse of discretion, see Harris, 458 Md. at 405 ; Hall v. State, 437 Md. 534, 539 (2014), “[t]he threshold determination of whether the evidence is sufficient to generate the desired instruction is a question of law” and thus is reviewed de novo, Bazzle, 426 Md. at 550 (quoting Dishman v. State, 352 Md. 279, 292-93 (1998)).

2022“We review de novo whether a jury instruction was a correct statement of the law.” State v. Elzey, 472 Md. 84, 107 , 244 A.3d 1068, 1082 (2021) (citation omitted).

2022“We review de novo whether a jury instruction was a correct statement of the law.” State v. Elzey, 472 Md. 84, 107 , 244 A.3d 1068, 1082 (2021) (citation omitted).

2022See, e.g., Yates v. State, 429 Md. 112, 130 , 55 A.3d 25, 36 (2012) (“In general, a party must object to the failure to give a particular instruction promptly after the instructions are delivered, stating the grounds for the objection.” (Citation omitted)); Watts v. State, 457 Md. 419, 426 , 179 A.3d 929, 933 (2018) (“This Court has consistently repeated that the failure to object to an instructional error prevents a party on appeal from raising the issue under Rule 4-325([f]).” (Citations omitted)). - 58 - “We review a trial court’s decision to propound or not propound a proposed jury instruc

2022See, e.g., Yates v. State, 429 Md. 112, 130 , 55 A.3d 25, 36 (2012) (“In general, a party must object to the failure to give a particular instruction promptly after the instructions are delivered, stating the grounds for the objection.” (Citation omitted)); Watts v. State, 457 Md. 419, 426 , 179 A.3d 929, 933 (2018) (“This Court has consistently repeated that the failure to object to an instructional error prevents a party on appeal from raising the issue under Rule 4-325([f]).” (Citations omitted)). - 58 - “We review a trial court’s decision to propound or not propound a proposed jury instruc

2022See, e.g., Yates v. State, 429 Md. 112, 130 , 55 A.3d 25, 36 (2012) (“In general, a party must object to the failure to give a particular instruction promptly after the instructions are delivered, stating the grounds for the objection.” (Citation omitted)); Watts v. State, 457 Md. 419, 426 , 179 A.3d 929, 933 (2018) (“This Court has consistently repeated that the failure to object to an instructional error prevents a party on appeal from raising the issue under Rule 4-325([f]).” (Citations omitted)). - 58 - “We review a trial court’s decision to propound or not propound a proposed jury instruc

2022See, e.g., Yates v. State, 429 Md. 112, 130 , 55 A.3d 25, 36 (2012) (“In general, a party must object to the failure to give a particular instruction promptly after the instructions are delivered, stating the grounds for the objection.” (Citation omitted)); Watts v. State, 457 Md. 419, 426 , 179 A.3d 929, 933 (2018) (“This Court has consistently repeated that the failure to object to an instructional error prevents a party on appeal from raising the issue under Rule 4-325([f]).” (Citations omitted)). - 58 - “We review a trial court’s decision to propound or not propound a proposed jury instruc

2022See, e.g., Yates v. State, 429 Md. 112, 130 , 55 A.3d 25, 36 (2012) (“In general, a party must object to the failure to give a particular instruction promptly after the instructions are delivered, stating the grounds for the objection.” (Citation omitted)); Watts v. State, 457 Md. 419, 426 , 179 A.3d 929, 933 (2018) (“This Court has consistently repeated that the failure to object to an instructional error prevents a party on appeal from raising the issue under Rule 4-325([f]).” (Citations omitted)). - 58 - “We review a trial court’s decision to propound or not propound a proposed jury instruc

2022See, e.g., Yates v. State, 429 Md. 112, 130 , 55 A.3d 25, 36 (2012) (“In general, a party must object to the failure to give a particular instruction promptly after the instructions are delivered, stating the grounds for the objection.” (Citation omitted)); Watts v. State, 457 Md. 419, 426 , 179 A.3d 929, 933 (2018) (“This Court has consistently repeated that the failure to object to an instructional error prevents a party on appeal from raising the issue under Rule 4-325([f]).” (Citations omitted)). - 58 - “We review a trial court’s decision to propound or not propound a proposed jury instruc

2021Stabb v. State, 423 Md. 454, 465 (2011) (citing Gunning v. State, 347 Md. 332, 351 (1997)).

2016P’ship, Inc., 351 Md. 544, 576-80 , 719 A.2d 119 (1998) (no error in refusing to give a proposed jury instruction on proximate cause with the passive negligence concept); see also id. at 577, 719 A.2d 119 (“Subsequent opinions of this Court have limited the ‘passive’ negligence language of Bloom , and indeed have limited the holding in that case, to the type of factual situation there involved.”).

2016P’ship, Inc., 351 Md. 544, 576-80 , 719 A.2d 119 (1998) (no error in refusing to give a proposed jury instruction on proximate cause with the passive negligence concept); see also id. at 577, 719 A.2d 119 (“Subsequent opinions of this Court have limited the ‘passive’ negligence language of Bloom , and indeed have limited the holding in that case, to the type of factual situation there involved.”).

2015There are “three components that must be met to include a proposed jury instruction in the ultimate charge to .the jury: ‘(1) the instruction is a correct statement of law; (2) the instruction is applicable to the facts of the case; and (3) *623 the content of the instruction was not fairly covered elsewhere in instructions actually given.’ ” Wood v. State, 436 Md. 276, 293 , 81 A.3d 427 (2013) (quoting Dickey v. State, 404 Md. 187, 197-98 , 946 A.2d 444 (2008)); see also Gunning v. State, 347 Md. 332, 348 , 701 A.2d 374 (1997) (same).

2015There are “three components that must be met to include a proposed jury instruction in the ultimate charge to .the jury: ‘(1) the instruction is a correct statement of law; (2) the instruction is applicable to the facts of the case; and (3) *623 the content of the instruction was not fairly covered elsewhere in instructions actually given.’ ” Wood v. State, 436 Md. 276, 293 , 81 A.3d 427 (2013) (quoting Dickey v. State, 404 Md. 187, 197-98 , 946 A.2d 444 (2008)); see also Gunning v. State, 347 Md. 332, 348 , 701 A.2d 374 (1997) (same).

2011Passenger Corp., 417 Md. 217, 228 (2010), cert. dismissed, - U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 1811 , 179 L.Ed.2d 673 (2011).