case that supports instruction in Maryland

2010Ordinarily, “ ‘a defendant is entitled to an instruction as to any recognized defense for which there exists evidence sufficient for a reasonable jury to find in his favor.’ ” *644 General v. State, 367 Md. 475, 486 , 789 A.2d 102 (2002) (quoting Mathews v. United States, 485 U.S. 58, 63 , 108 S.Ct. 883 , 99 L.Ed.2d 54 (1988)); see Binnie, supra, 321 Md. at 582 , 583 A.2d 1037 (“ ‘[A] defendant is entitled to have the jury instructed on any theory of defense that is fairly supported by the evidence, even if several theories offered are inconsistent.’ ”) (quoting Sims v. State, 319 Md. 540, 550

2010Ordinarily, “ ‘a defendant is entitled to an instruction as to any recognized defense for which there exists evidence sufficient for a reasonable jury to find in his favor.’ ” *644 General v. State, 367 Md. 475, 486 , 789 A.2d 102 (2002) (quoting Mathews v. United States, 485 U.S. 58, 63 , 108 S.Ct. 883 , 99 L.Ed.2d 54 (1988)); see Binnie, supra, 321 Md. at 582 , 583 A.2d 1037 (“ ‘[A] defendant is entitled to have the jury instructed on any theory of defense that is fairly supported by the evidence, even if several theories offered are inconsistent.’ ”) (quoting Sims v. State, 319 Md. 540, 550

2023In Dishman v. State, 352 Md. 279, 292 , 721 A.2d 699 (1998), the Maryland Supreme Court explained: The determination of whether an instruction must be given turns on whether there is any evidence in the case that supports the instruction.

2023In Dishman v. State, 352 Md. 279, 292 , 721 A.2d 699 (1998), the Maryland Supreme Court explained: The determination of whether an instruction must be given turns on whether there is any evidence in the case that supports the instruction.

2010This “turns on whether there is any evidence in the case that supports the instruction.” Dishman, v. State, 352 Md. 279, 292 , 721 A.2d 699 (1998); see Riggins v. State, 155 Md.App. 181, 222 , 843 A.2d 115 , cert. denied, 381 Md. 676 , 851 A.2d 595 (2004).

2010This “turns on whether there is any evidence in the case that supports the instruction.” Dishman, v. State, 352 Md. 279, 292 , 721 A.2d 699 (1998); see Riggins v. State, 155 Md.App. 181, 222 , 843 A.2d 115 , cert. denied, 381 Md. 676 , 851 A.2d 595 (2004).

2000See, e.g., Binnie v. State, 321 Md. 572, 582 , 583 A.2d 1037, 1041 (1991) (restating that “it is incumbent upon the court, ... when requested in a criminal case, to give an ... instruction on every essential question or point of law supported by evidence.” (quoting Smith v. State, 302 Md. 175, 179 , 486 A.2d 196, 198 (1985) (in turn quoting Bruce v. State, 218 Md. 87, 97 , 145 A.2d 428, 433 (1958)))).

2000See, e.g., Binnie v. State, 321 Md. 572, 582 , 583 A.2d 1037, 1041 (1991) (restating that “it is incumbent upon the court, ... when requested in a criminal case, to give an ... instruction on every essential question or point of law supported by evidence.” (quoting Smith v. State, 302 Md. 175, 179 , 486 A.2d 196, 198 (1985) (in turn quoting Bruce v. State, 218 Md. 87, 97 , 145 A.2d 428, 433 (1958)))).

2025General v. State, 367 Md. at 486-87 , again explained: Whether a particular instruction must be given depends upon whether there is any evidence in the case that supports the instruction; if the requested instruction has not been generated by the evidence, the trial court is not required to give it.

2010Thus, a criminal defendant “is entitled to have the jury instructed on any theory of the defense that is fairly supported by the evidence” and “[w]hether a particular instruction must be given depends upon whether there is any evidence in the case that supports the instruction; if the requested instruction has not been generated by the *593 evidence, the trial court is not required to give it.” General v. State, 367 Md. 475, 485-87 , 789 A.2d 102 (2002).

2008Whether the requested, instruction is applicable to the facts is a question of law, Roach v. State, 358 Md. 418, 428 , 749 A.2d 787 (2000), which “turns on whether there is any evidence in the case that supports the instruction.” Dishman v. State, 352 Md. 279, 292 , 721 A.2d 699 (1998); see Riggins v. State, 155 Md.App. 181, 222 , 843 A.2d 115 , cert. denied, 381 Md. 676 , 851 A.2d 595 (2004).

2008Whether the requested, instruction is applicable to the facts is a question of law, Roach v. State, 358 Md. 418, 428 , 749 A.2d 787 (2000), which “turns on whether there is any evidence in the case that supports the instruction.” Dishman v. State, 352 Md. 279, 292 , 721 A.2d 699 (1998); see Riggins v. State, 155 Md.App. 181, 222 , 843 A.2d 115 , cert. denied, 381 Md. 676 , 851 A.2d 595 (2004).

2003See id. at 486-87 , 789 A.2d at 108-09 ; Hof v. State, 337 Md. 581, 612 , 655 A.2d 370, 386 (1995); Binnie v. State, 321 Md. 572, 582 , *433 583 A.2d 1037, 1041 (1991).

2003See id. at 486-87 , 789 A.2d at 108-09 ; Hof v. State, 337 Md. 581, 612 , 655 A.2d 370, 386 (1995); Binnie v. State, 321 Md. 572, 582 , *433 583 A.2d 1037, 1041 (1991).

2024The task of this Court on review is to determine whether the criminal defendant produced that minimum threshold of evidence necessary to establish a prima facie case that would allow a jury to rationally conclude that the evidence supports the application of the legal theory desired. 352 Md. 279, 292 (1998); see also Rainey v. State, 480 Md. 230, 261 (2022) (holding that a defendant’s major change in appearance five weeks after the shooting and his infrequent visits to the neighborhood thereafter “overcome[] the minimal threshold of ‘some evidence’ to establish . . . a desire to conceal eviden

2024The task of this Court on review is to determine whether the criminal defendant produced that minimum threshold of evidence necessary to establish a prima facie case that would allow a jury to rationally conclude that the evidence supports the application of the legal theory desired. 352 Md. 279, 292 (1998); see also Rainey v. State, 480 Md. 230, 261 (2022) (holding that a defendant’s major change in appearance five weeks after the shooting and his infrequent visits to the neighborhood thereafter “overcome[] the minimal threshold of ‘some evidence’ to establish . . . a desire to conceal eviden

2010Ordinarily, “ ‘a defendant is entitled to an instruction as to any recognized defense for which there exists evidence sufficient for a reasonable jury to find in his favor.’ ” *644 General v. State, 367 Md. 475, 486 , 789 A.2d 102 (2002) (quoting Mathews v. United States, 485 U.S. 58, 63 , 108 S.Ct. 883 , 99 L.Ed.2d 54 (1988)); see Binnie, supra, 321 Md. at 582 , 583 A.2d 1037 (“ ‘[A] defendant is entitled to have the jury instructed on any theory of defense that is fairly supported by the evidence, even if several theories offered are inconsistent.’ ”) (quoting Sims v. State, 319 Md. 540, 550

2010Ordinarily, “ ‘a defendant is entitled to an instruction as to any recognized defense for which there exists evidence sufficient for a reasonable jury to find in his favor.’ ” *644 General v. State, 367 Md. 475, 486 , 789 A.2d 102 (2002) (quoting Mathews v. United States, 485 U.S. 58, 63 , 108 S.Ct. 883 , 99 L.Ed.2d 54 (1988)); see Binnie, supra, 321 Md. at 582 , 583 A.2d 1037 (“ ‘[A] defendant is entitled to have the jury instructed on any theory of defense that is fairly supported by the evidence, even if several theories offered are inconsistent.’ ”) (quoting Sims v. State, 319 Md. 540, 550

2000See, e.g., Binnie v. State, 321 Md. 572, 582 , 583 A.2d 1037, 1041 (1991) (restating that “it is incumbent upon the court, ... when requested in a criminal case, to give an ... instruction on every essential question or point of law supported by evidence.” (quoting Smith v. State, 302 Md. 175, 179 , 486 A.2d 196, 198 (1985) (in turn quoting Bruce v. State, 218 Md. 87, 97 , 145 A.2d 428, 433 (1958)))).

2000See, e.g., Binnie v. State, 321 Md. 572, 582 , 583 A.2d 1037, 1041 (1991) (restating that “it is incumbent upon the court, ... when requested in a criminal case, to give an ... instruction on every essential question or point of law supported by evidence.” (quoting Smith v. State, 302 Md. 175, 179 , 486 A.2d 196, 198 (1985) (in turn quoting Bruce v. State, 218 Md. 87, 97 , 145 A.2d 428, 433 (1958)))).

1998See, e.g., Binnie v. State, 321 Md. 572, 581 , 583 A.2d 1037, 1041 (1991)(holding in theft case that defendant’s uncorroborated statement showing honest belief as to right to property was sufficient to send to jury honest belief defense); Smith v. State, 302 Md. 175, 181 , 486 A.2d 196, 199 (1985)(holding that accused’s alibi statement was sufficient to require jury instruction even though uncorroborated); Sergeant Co. v. Pickett, 285 Md. 186, 194 , 401 A.2d 651, 655 (1979) (applying similar standard in context of civil trial).

1998See, e.g., Binnie v. State, 321 Md. 572, 581 , 583 A.2d 1037, 1041 (1991)(holding in theft case that defendant’s uncorroborated statement showing honest belief as to right to property was sufficient to send to jury honest belief defense); Smith v. State, 302 Md. 175, 181 , 486 A.2d 196, 199 (1985)(holding that accused’s alibi statement was sufficient to require jury instruction even though uncorroborated); Sergeant Co. v. Pickett, 285 Md. 186, 194 , 401 A.2d 651, 655 (1979) (applying similar standard in context of civil trial).