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.
8 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1991–2022 2 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. FAR WEST WATER & SEWER INC.green1 sentence2022Water & Sewer Inc., 228 P.3d 909, 927-29 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010) (The Court of Appeals of Arizona held that the evidence was sufficient to support a corporation’s convictions for negligent homicide where a jury could reasonably conclude that management was “aware of the substantial and unjustifiable risk of death or physical injury involved in working in” the sewage treatment plant and consciously disregarded that risk, and that management’s conduct “constituted a gross deviation from the standard of care or conduct under a reasonable person standard[.]”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Randolgreen2 sentences2014In Butler, 880 S.W.2d at 397 , the court stated that the statutory definition of criminal negligence related to “(1) the defendant’s conduct, (2) a substantial and justifiable risk existing at the time of the conduct or resulting from the conduct, (3) the defendant’s failure ... to perceive the risk, and (4) that failure being a gross deviation from the standard of care.” 7 *683 Under those circumstances, the court held that “the statutory definition provides adequate notice of what conduct is covered.” In State v. Randol, 226 Kan. 347 , 597 P.2d 672, 673 (1979), the Kansas Supreme Court addre 2014In Butler, 880 S.W.2d at 397 , the court stated that the statutory definition of criminal negligence related to “(1) the defendant’s conduct, (2) a substantial and justifiable risk existing at the time of the conduct or resulting from the conduct, (3) the defendant’s failure ... to perceive the risk, and (4) that failure being a gross deviation from the standard of care.” 7 *683 Under those circumstances, the court held that “the statutory definition provides adequate notice of what conduct is covered.” In State v. Randol, 226 Kan. 347 , 597 P.2d 672, 673 (1979), the Kansas Supreme Court addre | 1 | 1 |
Ball v. Stategreen2 sentences1998See Maryland Rule 4-325(e)(“The court may, and at the request of any party shall, instruct the jury as to the applicable law and the extent to which the instructions are binding.”); Lansdowne v. State, 287 Md. 232, 239 , 412 A.2d 88, 91 (1980)(holding that the trial judge must “give a requested instruction which correctly states the applicable law and which has not been fairly covered in instructions”); cf. Ball v. State, 347 Md. 156, 190 , 699 A.2d 1170, 1186 (1997)(observing that Md. 1998See Maryland Rule 4-325(e)(“The court may, and at the request of any party shall, instruct the jury as to the applicable law and the extent to which the instructions are binding.”); Lansdowne v. State, 287 Md. 232, 239 , 412 A.2d 88, 91 (1980)(holding that the trial judge must “give a requested instruction which correctly states the applicable law and which has not been fairly covered in instructions”); cf. Ball v. State, 347 Md. 156, 190 , 699 A.2d 1170, 1186 (1997)(observing that Md. | 1 | 1 |
Mills v. Stategreen2 sentences1998The negligence variety of involuntary manslaughter requires a gross deviation from the standard of care an ordinary person would use, ie., the conduct must manifest “ ‘a wanton or reckless disregard of human life.’ ” Albrecht, 336 Md. at 499 , 649 A.2d at 348 (quoting Mills v. State, 13 Md.App. 196, 200 , 282 A.2d 147, 149 (1971), cert. denied, 264 Md. 750 (1972)). *292 Since the prosecution in this case had not entered a nolle prosequi of the charged offense of manslaughter, the trial court was required to give the manslaughter instruction so long as it was a permissible verdict generated by 1998The negligence variety of involuntary manslaughter requires a gross deviation from the standard of care an ordinary person would use, ie., the conduct must manifest “ ‘a wanton or reckless disregard of human life.’ ” Albrecht, 336 Md. at 499 , 649 A.2d at 348 (quoting Mills v. State, 13 Md.App. 196, 200 , 282 A.2d 147, 149 (1971), cert. denied, 264 Md. 750 (1972)). *292 Since the prosecution in this case had not entered a nolle prosequi of the charged offense of manslaughter, the trial court was required to give the manslaughter instruction so long as it was a permissible verdict generated by | 1 | 1 |
Lansdowne v. Stategreen2 sentences1998See Maryland Rule 4-325(e)(“The court may, and at the request of any party shall, instruct the jury as to the applicable law and the extent to which the instructions are binding.”); Lansdowne v. State, 287 Md. 232, 239 , 412 A.2d 88, 91 (1980)(holding that the trial judge must “give a requested instruction which correctly states the applicable law and which has not been fairly covered in instructions”); cf. Ball v. State, 347 Md. 156, 190 , 699 A.2d 1170, 1186 (1997)(observing that Md. 1998See Maryland Rule 4-325(e)(“The court may, and at the request of any party shall, instruct the jury as to the applicable law and the extent to which the instructions are binding.”); Lansdowne v. State, 287 Md. 232, 239 , 412 A.2d 88, 91 (1980)(holding that the trial judge must “give a requested instruction which correctly states the applicable law and which has not been fairly covered in instructions”); cf. Ball v. State, 347 Md. 156, 190 , 699 A.2d 1170, 1186 (1997)(observing that Md. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Williams v. State
green
1 sentence2021The circumstances in Williams, 101 Md. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Merrill
green
1 sentence2020Merrill argued that there was no evidence of criminal culpability because “co-sleeping with an infant does not create a substantial and unjustifiable risk of injury or death to an infant nor does it constitute a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise.” Id. at 203 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Butler
green
1 sentence2014In Butler, 880 S.W.2d at 397 , the court stated that the statutory definition of criminal negligence related to “(1) the defendant’s conduct, (2) a substantial and justifiable risk existing at the time of the conduct or resulting from the conduct, (3) the defendant’s failure ... to perceive the risk, and (4) that failure being a gross deviation from the standard of care.” 7 *683 Under those circumstances, the court held that “the statutory definition provides adequate notice of what conduct is covered.” In State v. Randol, 226 Kan. 347 , 597 P.2d 672, 673 (1979), the Kansas Supreme Court addre | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Albrecht
green
2 sentences1998The negligence variety of involuntary manslaughter requires a gross deviation from the standard of care an ordinary person would use, ie., the conduct must manifest “ ‘a wanton or reckless disregard of human life.’ ” Albrecht, 336 Md. at 499 , 649 A.2d at 348 (quoting Mills v. State, 13 Md.App. 196, 200 , 282 A.2d 147, 149 (1971), cert. denied, 264 Md. 750 (1972)). *292 Since the prosecution in this case had not entered a nolle prosequi of the charged offense of manslaughter, the trial court was required to give the manslaughter instruction so long as it was a permissible verdict generated by 1998The negligence variety of involuntary manslaughter requires a gross deviation from the standard of care an ordinary person would use, ie., the conduct must manifest “ ‘a wanton or reckless disregard of human life.’ ” Albrecht, 336 Md. at 499 , 649 A.2d at 348 (quoting Mills v. State, 13 Md.App. 196, 200 , 282 A.2d 147, 149 (1971), cert. denied, 264 Md. 750 (1972)). *292 Since the prosecution in this case had not entered a nolle prosequi of the charged offense of manslaughter, the trial court was required to give the manslaughter instruction so long as it was a permissible verdict generated by | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Commonwealth v. Knight
green
1 sentence1994Id. 611 A.2d at 1204 . (quoting 18 Pa.Cons.Stat.Ann. § 302(b)(3)). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Minor v. State
green
2 sentences1993In Minor v. State, 326 Md. at 443 , 605 A.2d 138 , Chief Judge Murphy set out the test for recklessness in this state: “The test is whether the appellant’s misconduct, viewed objectively, was so reckless as to constitute a gross departure from the standard of conduct that a law-abiding person would observe, and thereby create the substantial risk that the statute was designed to punish.” (emphasis supplied). 1993In Minor v. State, 326 Md. at 443 , 605 A.2d 138 , Chief Judge Murphy set out the test for recklessness in this state: “The test is whether the appellant’s misconduct, viewed objectively, was so reckless as to constitute a gross departure from the standard of conduct that a law-abiding person would observe, and thereby create the substantial risk that the statute was designed to punish.” (emphasis supplied). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
People v. Carlton
green
2 sentences1991To the same effect see Goffer v. State, 430 So.2d 896 (Ala.Crim.App.1983); Slay v. State, 508 So.2d 1268 (Fla.App.1987); Navarro v. State, 433 So.2d 1011 (Fla.App.1983); People v. Schwartz, 64 Ill.App.3d 989 , 21 IIl.Dec. 765, 382 N.E.2d 59 (1978); People v. Carlton, 26 Ill.App.3d 995 , 326 N.E.2d 100 (1975); State v. Hardie, 47 Iowa 647 , 29 Am. 1991To the same effect see Goffer v. State, 430 So.2d 896 (Ala.Crim.App.1983); Slay v. State, 508 So.2d 1268 (Fla.App.1987); Navarro v. State, 433 So.2d 1011 (Fla.App.1983); People v. Schwartz, 64 Ill.App.3d 989 , 21 IIl.Dec. 765, 382 N.E.2d 59 (1978); People v. Carlton, 26 Ill.App.3d 995 , 326 N.E.2d 100 (1975); State v. Hardie, 47 Iowa 647 , 29 Am. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
People v. Andersch
green
2 sentences1991The court said that “[i]t is settled that pointing a loaded weapon at another constitutes recklessness since it is a gross deviation from the standard of care exercised by a reasonable person,” and that “the trier of fact could have properly determined that the defendant acted recklessly in not checking the condition of the weapon prior to the incident.” Id. at 818 , 63 IIl.Dec. at 557, 438 N.E.2d at 488 . 1991The court said that “[i]t is settled that pointing a loaded weapon at another constitutes recklessness since it is a gross deviation from the standard of care exercised by a reasonable person,” and that “the trier of fact could have properly determined that the defendant acted recklessly in not checking the condition of the weapon prior to the incident.” Id. at 818 , 63 IIl.Dec. at 557, 438 N.E.2d at 488 . | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Goffer v. State
green
1 sentence1991To the same effect see Goffer v. State, 430 So.2d 896 (Ala.Crim.App.1983); Slay v. State, 508 So.2d 1268 (Fla.App.1987); Navarro v. State, 433 So.2d 1011 (Fla.App.1983); People v. Schwartz, 64 Ill.App.3d 989 , 21 IIl.Dec. 765, 382 N.E.2d 59 (1978); People v. Carlton, 26 Ill.App.3d 995 , 326 N.E.2d 100 (1975); State v. Hardie, 47 Iowa 647 , 29 Am. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
State v. Bailey
green
1 sentence1991To the same effect see Goffer v. State, 430 So.2d 896 (Ala.Crim.App.1983); Slay v. State, 508 So.2d 1268 (Fla.App.1987); Navarro v. State, 433 So.2d 1011 (Fla.App.1983); People v. Schwartz, 64 Ill.App.3d 989 , 21 IIl.Dec. 765, 382 N.E.2d 59 (1978); People v. Carlton, 26 Ill.App.3d 995 , 326 N.E.2d 100 (1975); State v. Hardie, 47 Iowa 647 , 29 Am. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
People v. Schwartz
green
2 sentences1991To the same effect see Goffer v. State, 430 So.2d 896 (Ala.Crim.App.1983); Slay v. State, 508 So.2d 1268 (Fla.App.1987); Navarro v. State, 433 So.2d 1011 (Fla.App.1983); People v. Schwartz, 64 Ill.App.3d 989 , 21 IIl.Dec. 765, 382 N.E.2d 59 (1978); People v. Carlton, 26 Ill.App.3d 995 , 326 N.E.2d 100 (1975); State v. Hardie, 47 Iowa 647 , 29 Am. 1991To the same effect see Goffer v. State, 430 So.2d 896 (Ala.Crim.App.1983); Slay v. State, 508 So.2d 1268 (Fla.App.1987); Navarro v. State, 433 So.2d 1011 (Fla.App.1983); People v. Schwartz, 64 Ill.App.3d 989 , 21 IIl.Dec. 765, 382 N.E.2d 59 (1978); People v. Carlton, 26 Ill.App.3d 995 , 326 N.E.2d 100 (1975); State v. Hardie, 47 Iowa 647 , 29 Am. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Navarro v. State
green
1 sentence1991To the same effect see Goffer v. State, 430 So.2d 896 (Ala.Crim.App.1983); Slay v. State, 508 So.2d 1268 (Fla.App.1987); Navarro v. State, 433 So.2d 1011 (Fla.App.1983); People v. Schwartz, 64 Ill.App.3d 989 , 21 IIl.Dec. 765, 382 N.E.2d 59 (1978); People v. Carlton, 26 Ill.App.3d 995 , 326 N.E.2d 100 (1975); State v. Hardie, 47 Iowa 647 , 29 Am. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
State v. Hardie
green
1 sentence1991To the same effect see Goffer v. State, 430 So.2d 896 (Ala.Crim.App.1983); Slay v. State, 508 So.2d 1268 (Fla.App.1987); Navarro v. State, 433 So.2d 1011 (Fla.App.1983); People v. Schwartz, 64 Ill.App.3d 989 , 21 IIl.Dec. 765, 382 N.E.2d 59 (1978); People v. Carlton, 26 Ill.App.3d 995 , 326 N.E.2d 100 (1975); State v. Hardie, 47 Iowa 647 , 29 Am. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
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.