outset analysis in Maryland

2017The case reached the Court of Appeals, which explained at the outset of its analysis that, “[a]t common law, a criminal defendant had no right to pre-trial discovery.” 337 Md. at 121 6 Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(a)(1)(e) requires that the item be “within the government’s possession, custody, or control” and that it be either “material to preparing the defense[,]” an item the government intends to use in its case-in-chief, or an item that was “obtained from or belongs to the defendant.” -14- (citing State v. Haas, 188 Md. 63, 69 (1947), overruled on other grounds, In re Petition for

2017The case reached the Court of *145 Appeals, which explained at the outset of its analysis that, “[a]t common law, a criminal defendant had no right to pretrial discovery.” 337 Md. at 121 , 651 A.2d 866 (citing State v. Haas, 188 Md. 63, 69 , 51 A.2d 647 (1947), overruled on other grounds, In re Petition for Writ of Prohibition, 312 Md. 280, 305 , 539 A.2d 664 (1988)). “ ‘American courts, relying on the English precedent, adopted a common law rule holding that the judiciary lacked any inherent authority to order pretrial discovery in criminal cases.’ ” Id. (citing and quoting Wayne R.

2024In denying the motion to dismiss, Judge Davis implicitly accepted as a fact that the prosecutor had no deliberate purpose to circumvent the 180-day rule. 130 Md.

2020As a result of Chapter 592, however, an action at law to enforce an obligation evidenced by a promissory note, deed of trust, or mortgage on owner-occupied residential property is now subject to the three-year statute of limitations in § 5-101.14 In addition to the codified provisions of Chapter 592, the General Assembly enacted four substantive uncodified provisions, two of which concern the exclusion effected by § 1.15 Section 3 of Chapter 592 provides: “That, except as provided in Section 4 of this stressed at the outset of our analysis that the action at issue “d[id] not involve a foreclos

2010At the outset of the hearing, defense counsel informed the court of the terms of the plea agreement between the parties: Petitioner would enter an Alford plea, see North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 , 91 S.Ct. 160 , 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970), to two counts of robbery with a dangerous weapon (one count for each of the two victims); the State would enter the remaining charges nolle prosequi; and "sentencing [would] be within Guidelines." The court confirmed that it was being asked that "I just commit myself within Guidelines?" to which the State replied, "Yes, sir.

2010At the outset of the hearing, defense counsel informed the court of the terms of the plea agreement between the parties: Petitioner would enter an Alford plea, see North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 , 91 S.Ct. 160 , 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970), to two counts of robbery with a dangerous weapon (one count for each of the two victims); the State would enter the remaining charges nolle prosequi; and "sentencing [would] be within Guidelines." The court confirmed that it was being asked that "I just commit myself within Guidelines?" to which the State replied, "Yes, sir.

2009Collins, 376 Md. at 366-67 , 829 A.2d 992 .

2009Collins, 376 Md. at 366-67 , 829 A.2d 992 .

2005Even so, we acknowledge that this Court has already addressed the issue of voir dire questions and tort reform in Kujawa v. Baltimore Transit Company, 224 Md. 195 , 167 A.2d 96 (1961).

2005Even so, we acknowledge that this Court has already addressed the issue of voir dire questions and tort reform in Kujawa v. Baltimore Transit Company, 224 Md. 195 , 167 A.2d 96 (1961).

2005At the outset of its analysis, the Court observed that, “[i]f the traveler goes outside of the bounds of the highway he cannot, as a general rule, recover of the municipality for injuries sustained as a result of a condition encountered beyond these limits.” Id. at 36 , 197 A. 615 .

2005At the outset of its analysis, the Court observed that, “[i]f the traveler goes outside of the bounds of the highway he cannot, as a general rule, recover of the municipality for injuries sustained as a result of a condition encountered beyond these limits.” Id. at 36 , 197 A. 615 .

2001It is important to note at the outset of this analysis that “[wjhere there is a merger of a lesser included offense into a greater offense, we are not concerned with penalties — the lesser included offense generally merges into and is subsumed by the greater offense regardless of penalties.” Spitzinger v. State, 340 Md. 114, 125 , 665 A.2d 685, 690 (1995) (citing Simms, 288 Md. 712 , 421 A.2d 957 ).

2001It is important to note at the outset of this analysis that “[wjhere there is a merger of a lesser included offense into a greater offense, we are not concerned with penalties — the lesser included offense generally merges into and is subsumed by the greater offense regardless of penalties.” Spitzinger v. State, 340 Md. 114, 125 , 665 A.2d 685, 690 (1995) (citing Simms, 288 Md. 712 , 421 A.2d 957 ).

2000At the outset of our analysis, we explained that “an employee’s act becomes voluntary when the employee is given a clear and reasonable choice either to act or not to act, and then chooses willingly to act.” ADM Partnership, 348 Md. at 93 , 702 A.2d at 735 . (citations omitted).

2000At the outset of our analysis, we explained that “an employee’s act becomes voluntary when the employee is given a clear and reasonable choice either to act or not to act, and then chooses willingly to act.” ADM Partnership, 348 Md. at 93 , 702 A.2d at 735 . (citations omitted).

1988Frye v. Frye, 305 Md. 542 , 505 A.2d 826 (1986).

1988Frye v. Frye, 305 Md. 542 , 505 A.2d 826 (1986).

1967The record discloses full agreement between the petitioner and the State that Hardy was indicted on May 12, 1947 for an alleged rape occurring on September 17, 1946; that he was apprehended in Virginia on January 17, 1948, returned to Maryland the following day, and placed in the Harford County jail; that he was arraigned on February 27, 1948, at which time he pleaded not guilty; that while he was not represented by counsel at the time of his arraignment, two lawyers were appointed by the court to represent him not later than two days after the arraignment; that he was tried and convicted by a

1949Goodrich, Conflict of Laws, 2d Ed., § 155, citing Vansant v. Roberts, 3 Md. 119 ; Hope v. Brewer, 136 N. Y. 126 , 32 N. E. 558 , 18 L.

1949Goodrich, Conflict of Laws, 2d Ed., § 155, citing Vansant v. Roberts, 3 Md. 119 ; Hope v. Brewer, 136 N. Y. 126 , 32 N. E. 558 , 18 L.

1949Goodrich, Conflict of Laws, 2d Ed., § 155, citing Vansant v. Roberts, 3 Md. 119 ; Hope v. Brewer, 136 N. Y. 126 , 32 N. E. 558 , 18 L.