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.
10 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1973–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Williamsgreen1 sentence2014See Williams, 397 Md. at 194-95 . | 1 | 1 |
Tharp v. Stategreen1 sentence2013See Tharp v. State, 129 MdApp. 319, 329, 742 A.2d 6 (1999) (“[S]o long as the law is fairly covered by the jury instructions, reviewing courts should not disturb them.”). | 1 | 1 |
Turner v. Arkansasgreen1 sentence1990See Turner v. Arkansas, supra, 407 U.S. at 369-370 , 92 S.Ct. at 2098-2099 (applying collateral estoppel and rejecting, based upon review of record and jury instructions, State's argument that acquittal on murder charge at first trial might be based on theory that petitioner was accomplice of murderer and thus might be subsequently prosecuted for robbery of the same victim). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Brogden v. State
green
2 sentences2019“While it may be commonplace for a jury to pose questions during deliberations to a trial court for clarification and often these questions are reasonable, this does not mean that a trial court judge is obliged to provide answers via supplemental instructions to every question that a jury presents to the court[.]” Brogden, 384 Md. at 644 . 2019Rather than giving the accomplice instruction here, the court should have instructed the jury "to confine its deliberations to the issues and evidence properly before it and the instructions already given and not to speculate on matters as to which no evidence had been introduced." Id. at 651, 866 A.2d 129 . | 2 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Ransom
green
2 sentences2009The judge responded by giving an instruction on accomplice liability- The Washington appellate court held that the trial court erred in giving the accomplice instruction after deliberations had begun, because “supplemental instructions should not go beyond matters that either had been, or could have been, argued to the jury.” Id. at 713-14 , 785 P.2d at 469-70 . 2009The judge responded by giving an instruction on accomplice liability- The Washington appellate court held that the trial court erred in giving the accomplice instruction after deliberations had begun, because “supplemental instructions should not go beyond matters that either had been, or could have been, argued to the jury.” Id. at 713-14 , 785 P.2d at 469-70 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Mason v. State
green
2 sentences1992Mason, 12 Md.App. at 661 , 280 A.2d 753 (“a request for an instruction is properly refused where there is no evidence to support it.”). 1992Mason, 12 Md.App. at 661 , 280 A.2d 753 (“a request for an instruction is properly refused where there is no evidence to support it.”). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
United States v. Paul Calvin Evans, Anthony Walter Andrzejewski, and Charles Joseph Harriston, Paul Calvin Evans
green
1 sentence1987There, other trial error, specifically the failure to give an accomplice instruction and permitting the defendant’s alibi witness to be impeached by an inadmissible prior conviction, enhanced the effect of the improper instruction on the jury. 398 F.2d at 162-66 . | 1 | 1987–1987 |
State v. Evans
green
2 sentences1978He seeks support in State v. Evans, 278 Md. 197 , 362 A. 2d 629 (1976) and State v. Grady, 276 Md. 178 , 345 A. 2d 436 (1975). 1978He seeks support in State v. Evans, 278 Md. 197 , 362 A. 2d 629 (1976) and State v. Grady, 276 Md. 178 , 345 A. 2d 436 (1975). | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Mullaney v. Wilbur
green
2 sentences1978We deem it to be the rule in this State. 8 *624 III Bennett contends that “placing on a defendant the burden of proving that a witness is an accomplice is a violation of due process.” He looks to In re Winship, 397 U. S. 358 , 90 S. Ct. 1068 (1970) as applied in Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U. S. 684 , 95 S. Ct. 1881 (1975). 1978We deem it to be the rule in this State. 8 *624 III Bennett contends that “placing on a defendant the burden of proving that a witness is an accomplice is a violation of due process.” He looks to In re Winship, 397 U. S. 358 , 90 S. Ct. 1068 (1970) as applied in Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U. S. 684 , 95 S. Ct. 1881 (1975). | 1 | 1978–1978 |
In Re WINSHIP
green
2 sentences1978We deem it to be the rule in this State. 8 *624 III Bennett contends that “placing on a defendant the burden of proving that a witness is an accomplice is a violation of due process.” He looks to In re Winship, 397 U. S. 358 , 90 S. Ct. 1068 (1970) as applied in Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U. S. 684 , 95 S. Ct. 1881 (1975). 1978We deem it to be the rule in this State. 8 *624 III Bennett contends that “placing on a defendant the burden of proving that a witness is an accomplice is a violation of due process.” He looks to In re Winship, 397 U. S. 358 , 90 S. Ct. 1068 (1970) as applied in Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U. S. 684 , 95 S. Ct. 1881 (1975). | 1 | 1978–1978 |
State v. Grady
green
2 sentences1978He seeks support in State v. Evans, 278 Md. 197 , 362 A. 2d 629 (1976) and State v. Grady, 276 Md. 178 , 345 A. 2d 436 (1975). 1978He seeks support in State v. Evans, 278 Md. 197 , 362 A. 2d 629 (1976) and State v. Grady, 276 Md. 178 , 345 A. 2d 436 (1975). | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Burley v. State
green
2 sentences1973This Court, speaking through Chief Judge Orth, clearly defined an accomplice and stated the rule requiring corroboration of the testimony of such a witness in Burley v. State, 5 Md. 1973App. 469 , 248 A. 2d 404 . | 1 | 1973–1973 |
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.