credibility rule in Maryland

2018Lawson v. State , 389 Md. 570 , 596, 886 A.2d 876 (2005).

2018Lawson v. State , 389 Md. 570 , 596, 886 A.2d 876 (2005).

2018When undermining the credibility of a defense witness, however, the State may use only evidence established in the record, id. at 433 , 722 A.2d 887 , and may not shift the burden of proof to the defendant to prove that the witness is not lying.

2018When undermining the credibility of a defense witness, however, the State may use only evidence established in the record, id. at 433 , 722 A.2d 887 , and may not shift the burden of proof to the defendant to prove that the witness is not lying.

2017Although the Rule discusses communications between "the judge” and jurors, this Court has previously held "that Rule 4-326(d) extends to communications between jurors and court personnel.” State v. Harris, 428 Md. 700, 714 , 53 A.3d 1171 (2012).

2017Although the Rule discusses communications between "the judge” and jurors, this Court has previously held "that Rule 4-326(d) extends to communications between jurors and court personnel.” State v. Harris, 428 Md. 700, 714 , 53 A.3d 1171 (2012).

2017Gupta v. State, 449 Md. 409 (2016).

2015In considering the testimony of any witness, you may take into account his ability and opportunity to observe, his memory, his manner while testifying, any interest, bias or prejudice he may have, and the reasonableness of his testimony considered in light of all the evidence in the case. *98 McInnis, 44 Ill.Dec. 120 , 411 N.E.2d at 38 .

2015In considering the testimony of any witness, you may take into account his ability and opportunity to observe, his memory, his manner while testifying, any interest, bias or prejudice he may have, and the reasonableness of his testimony considered in light of all the evidence in the case. *98 McInnis, 44 Ill.Dec. 120 , 411 N.E.2d at 38 .

1996In Lancaster v. State, 86 Md.App. 74 , 585 A.2d 274 (1991), aff'd on other grounds, 332 Md. 385, 631 A.2d 453 (1993), the Court of Special Appeals stated: “The law is perfectly clear that it is ‘impermissible to attack the credibility of a witness by asking him about his past record of juvenile offenses, directly, or indirectly.’ Indeed, any inquiry, ‘whether by record or by cross-exami nation, of determinations of prior juvenile delinquency is impermissible in ar.y adjudicatory hearing.’ ” (Citations omitted). 86 Md.App. at 86 , 585 A.2d at 280 .

1996In Lancaster v. State, 86 Md.App. 74 , 585 A.2d 274 (1991), aff'd on other grounds, 332 Md. 385, 631 A.2d 453 (1993), the Court of Special Appeals stated: “The law is perfectly clear that it is ‘impermissible to attack the credibility of a witness by asking him about his past record of juvenile offenses, directly, or indirectly.’ Indeed, any inquiry, ‘whether by record or by cross-exami nation, of determinations of prior juvenile delinquency is impermissible in ar.y adjudicatory hearing.’ ” (Citations omitted). 86 Md.App. at 86 , 585 A.2d at 280 .

1996In Lancaster v. State, 86 Md.App. 74 , 585 A.2d 274 (1991), aff'd on other grounds, 332 Md. 385, 631 A.2d 453 (1993), the Court of Special Appeals stated: “The law is perfectly clear that it is ‘impermissible to attack the credibility of a witness by asking him about his past record of juvenile offenses, directly, or indirectly.’ Indeed, any inquiry, ‘whether by record or by cross-exami nation, of determinations of prior juvenile delinquency is impermissible in ar.y adjudicatory hearing.’ ” (Citations omitted). 86 Md.App. at 86 , 585 A.2d at 280 .

1996In Lancaster v. State, 86 Md.App. 74 , 585 A.2d 274 (1991), aff'd on other grounds, 332 Md. 385, 631 A.2d 453 (1993), the Court of Special Appeals stated: “The law is perfectly clear that it is ‘impermissible to attack the credibility of a witness by asking him about his past record of juvenile offenses, directly, or indirectly.’ Indeed, any inquiry, ‘whether by record or by cross-exami nation, of determinations of prior juvenile delinquency is impermissible in ar.y adjudicatory hearing.’ ” (Citations omitted). 86 Md.App. at 86 , 585 A.2d at 280 .

1989Id. [65 Md.App.] at 508, 501 A.2d 111 .

1989Id. [65 Md.

1989Id. [65 Md.App.] at 508, 501 A.2d 111 .

1982See, for example, Harris v. State, 237 Md. 299 , 206 A.2d 254 (1965); Howard v. State, 234 Md. 410 , 199 A.2d 611 (1964); Kantor v. Ash, 215 Md. 285 , 137 A.2d 661 (1958); Panitz v. Webb, 149 Md. 75 , 130 A. 913 (1925).

1982See, for example, Harris v. State, 237 Md. 299 , 206 A.2d 254 (1965); Howard v. State, 234 Md. 410 , 199 A.2d 611 (1964); Kantor v. Ash, 215 Md. 285 , 137 A.2d 661 (1958); Panitz v. Webb, 149 Md. 75 , 130 A. 913 (1925).

1982For example, the Court found that the error was not harmless in Ross v. State, 276 Md. 664, 674 , 350 A.2d 680 (1976) (improper testimony of prior criminal conduct); Brafman v. State, 276 Md. 676, 680-681 , 349 A.2d 632 (1976) (admission of hearsay testimony); Dempsey v. State, 277 Md. 134 , 355 A.2d 455 (1976) (improper jury instruction); Crawford v. State, 285 Md. 431, 456 , 404 A.2d 244 (1979) (error in placing challenged portions of recordings of interrogations before jury); Hillard v. State, 286 Md. 145, 154-159 , 406 A.2d 415 (1979) (receipt of confession in evidence); Green v. State, 28

1982For example, the Court found that the error was not harmless in Ross v. State, 276 Md. 664, 674 , 350 A.2d 680 (1976) (improper testimony of prior criminal conduct); Brafman v. State, 276 Md. 676, 680-681 , 349 A.2d 632 (1976) (admission of hearsay testimony); Dempsey v. State, 277 Md. 134 , 355 A.2d 455 (1976) (improper jury instruction); Crawford v. State, 285 Md. 431, 456 , 404 A.2d 244 (1979) (error in placing challenged portions of recordings of interrogations before jury); Hillard v. State, 286 Md. 145, 154-159 , 406 A.2d 415 (1979) (receipt of confession in evidence); Green v. State, 28

1982For example, the Court found that the error was not harmless in Ross v. State, 276 Md. 664, 674 , 350 A.2d 680 (1976) (improper testimony of prior criminal conduct); Brafman v. State, 276 Md. 676, 680-681 , 349 A.2d 632 (1976) (admission of hearsay testimony); Dempsey v. State, 277 Md. 134 , 355 A.2d 455 (1976) (improper jury instruction); Crawford v. State, 285 Md. 431, 456 , 404 A.2d 244 (1979) (error in placing challenged portions of recordings of interrogations before jury); Hillard v. State, 286 Md. 145, 154-159 , 406 A.2d 415 (1979) (receipt of confession in evidence); Green v. State, 28

1982For example, the Court found that the error was not harmless in Ross v. State, 276 Md. 664, 674 , 350 A.2d 680 (1976) (improper testimony of prior criminal conduct); Brafman v. State, 276 Md. 676, 680-681 , 349 A.2d 632 (1976) (admission of hearsay testimony); Dempsey v. State, 277 Md. 134 , 355 A.2d 455 (1976) (improper jury instruction); Crawford v. State, 285 Md. 431, 456 , 404 A.2d 244 (1979) (error in placing challenged portions of recordings of interrogations before jury); Hillard v. State, 286 Md. 145, 154-159 , 406 A.2d 415 (1979) (receipt of confession in evidence); Green v. State, 28

1982For an example see Sloan v. Edwards, 61 Md. 89 (1883). "[E]vidence which is otherwise irrelevant cannot become relevant simply because it is capable of being contradicted, and will thereby impeach the witness." Smith at 158. [5] A number of the decisions of the Court of Appeals which refer to the credibility rule turn on the inadmissibility for the purpose of impeachment of extrinsic evidence on a collateral or irrelevant matter.

1982For example, the Court found that the error was not harmless in Ross v. State, 276 Md. 664, 674 , 350 A.2d 680 (1976) (improper testimony of prior criminal conduct); Brafman v. State, 276 Md. 676, 680-681 , 349 A.2d 632 (1976) (admission of hearsay testimony); Dempsey v. State, 277 Md. 134 , 355 A.2d 455 (1976) (improper jury instruction); Crawford v. State, 285 Md. 431, 456 , 404 A.2d 244 (1979) (error in placing challenged portions of recordings of interrogations before jury); Hillard v. State, 286 Md. 145, 154-159 , 406 A.2d 415 (1979) (receipt of confession in evidence); Green v. State, 28

1982For example, the Court found that the error was not harmless in Ross v. State, 276 Md. 664, 674 , 350 A.2d 680 (1976) (improper testimony of prior criminal conduct); Brafman v. State, 276 Md. 676, 680-681 , 349 A.2d 632 (1976) (admission of hearsay testimony); Dempsey v. State, 277 Md. 134 , 355 A.2d 455 (1976) (improper jury instruction); Crawford v. State, 285 Md. 431, 456 , 404 A.2d 244 (1979) (error in placing challenged portions of recordings of interrogations before jury); Hillard v. State, 286 Md. 145, 154-159 , 406 A.2d 415 (1979) (receipt of confession in evidence); Green v. State, 28

1982The statement in State v. Giles, 239 Md. 458, 472-473 , 212 A.2d 101 (1965), vac. 386 U.S. 66 (1967), that "we have held that specific acts of misconduct are not admissible to affect the credibility of a witness, for credibility must ordinarily be attacked by evidence of general reputation for truth or veracity or material contradictory facts,” simply ignores the credibility rule.

1982The statement in State v. Giles, 239 Md. 458, 472-473 , 212 A.2d 101 (1965), vac. 386 U.S. 66 (1967), that "we have held that specific acts of misconduct are not admissible to affect the credibility of a witness, for credibility must ordinarily be attacked by evidence of general reputation for truth or veracity or material contradictory facts," simply ignores the credibility rule.

1982For example, the Court found that the error was not harmless in Ross v. State, 276 Md. 664, 674 , 350 A.2d 680 (1976) (improper testimony of prior criminal conduct); Brafman v. State, 276 Md. 676, 680-681 , 349 A.2d 632 (1976) (admission of hearsay testimony); Dempsey v. State, 277 Md. 134 , 355 A.2d 455 (1976) (improper jury instruction); Crawford v. State, 285 Md. 431, 456 , 404 A.2d 244 (1979) (error in placing challenged portions of recordings of interrogations before jury); Hillard v. State, 286 Md. 145, 154-159 , 406 A.2d 415 (1979) (receipt of confession in evidence); Green v. State, 28

1982For example, the Court found that the error was not harmless in Ross v. State, 276 Md. 664, 674 , 350 A.2d 680 (1976) (improper testimony of prior criminal conduct); Brafman v. State, 276 Md. 676, 680-681 , 349 A.2d 632 (1976) (admission of hearsay testimony); Dempsey v. State, 277 Md. 134 , 355 A.2d 455 (1976) (improper jury instruction); Crawford v. State, 285 Md. 431, 456 , 404 A.2d 244 (1979) (error in placing challenged portions of recordings of interrogations before jury); Hillard v. State, 286 Md. 145, 154-159 , 406 A.2d 415 (1979) (receipt of confession in evidence); Green v. State, 28

1982For example, the Court found that the error was not harmless in Ross v. State, 276 Md. 664, 674 , 350 A.2d 680 (1976) (improper testimony of prior criminal conduct); Brafman v. State, 276 Md. 676, 680-681 , 349 A.2d 632 (1976) (admission of hearsay testimony); Dempsey v. State, 277 Md. 134 , 355 A.2d 455 (1976) (improper jury instruction); Crawford v. State, 285 Md. 431, 456 , 404 A.2d 244 (1979) (error in placing challenged portions of recordings of interrogations before jury); Hillard v. State, 286 Md. 145, 154-159 , 406 A.2d 415 (1979) (receipt of confession in evidence); Green v. State, 28

1982For example, the Court found that the error was not harmless in Ross v. State, 276 Md. 664, 674 , 350 A.2d 680 (1976) (improper testimony of prior criminal conduct); Brafman v. State, 276 Md. 676, 680-681 , 349 A.2d 632 (1976) (admission of hearsay testimony); Dempsey v. State, 277 Md. 134 , 355 A.2d 455 (1976) (improper jury instruction); Crawford v. State, 285 Md. 431, 456 , 404 A.2d 244 (1979) (error in placing challenged portions of recordings of interrogations before jury); Hillard v. State, 286 Md. 145, 154-159 , 406 A.2d 415 (1979) (receipt of confession in evidence); Green v. State, 28

1982For example, the Court found that the error was not harmless in Ross v. State, 276 Md. 664, 674 , 350 A.2d 680 (1976) (improper testimony of prior criminal conduct); Brafman v. State, 276 Md. 676, 680-681 , 349 A.2d 632 (1976) (admission of hearsay testimony); Dempsey v. State, 277 Md. 134 , 355 A.2d 455 (1976) (improper jury instruction); Crawford v. State, 285 Md. 431, 456 , 404 A.2d 244 (1979) (error in placing challenged portions of recordings of interrogations before jury); Hillard v. State, 286 Md. 145, 154-159 , 406 A.2d 415 (1979) (receipt of confession in evidence); Green v. State, 28

1982For example, the Court found that the error was not harmless in Ross v. State, 276 Md. 664, 674 , 350 A.2d 680 (1976) (improper testimony of prior criminal conduct); Brafman v. State, 276 Md. 676, 680-681 , 349 A.2d 632 (1976) (admission of hearsay testimony); Dempsey v. State, 277 Md. 134 , 355 A.2d 455 (1976) (improper jury instruction); Crawford v. State, 285 Md. 431, 456 , 404 A.2d 244 (1979) (error in placing challenged portions of recordings of interrogations before jury); Hillard v. State, 286 Md. 145, 154-159 , 406 A.2d 415 (1979) (receipt of confession in evidence); Green v. State, 28

1982The statement in State v. Giles, 239 Md. 458, 472-473 , 212 A.2d 101 (1965), vac. 386 U.S. 66 (1967), that "we have held that specific acts of misconduct are not admissible to affect the credibility of a witness, for credibility must ordinarily be attacked by evidence of general reputation for truth or veracity or material contradictory facts," simply ignores the credibility rule.

1982The statement in State v. Giles, 239 Md. 458, 472-473 , 212 A.2d 101 (1965), vac. 386 U.S. 66 (1967), that "we have held that specific acts of misconduct are not admissible to affect the credibility of a witness, for credibility must ordinarily be attacked by evidence of general reputation for truth or veracity or material contradictory facts," simply ignores the credibility rule.

1982See, for example, Harris v. State, 237 Md. 299 , 206 A.2d 254 (1965); Howard v. State, 234 Md. 410 , 199 A.2d 611 (1964); Kantor v. Ash, 215 Md. 285 , 137 A.2d 661 (1958); Panitz v. Webb, 149 Md. 75 , 130 A. 913 (1925).

1982See, for example, Harris v. State, 237 Md. 299 , 206 A.2d 254 (1965); Howard v. State, 234 Md. 410 , 199 A.2d 611 (1964); Kantor v. Ash, 215 Md. 285 , 137 A.2d 661 (1958); Panitz v. Webb, 149 Md. 75 , 130 A. 913 (1925).

1982Characterized as "a fundamental concept in our system of jurisprudence” by the present Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals of Maryland, then speaking for this Court in DeLilly v. State, 11 Md.

1982Characterized as "a fundamental concept in our system of jurisprudence" by the present Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals of Maryland, *277 then speaking for this Court in DeLilly v. State, 11 Md.

1982See, for example, Harris v. State, 237 Md. 299 , 206 A.2d 254 (1965); Howard v. State, 234 Md. 410 , 199 A.2d 611 (1964); Kantor v. Ash, 215 Md. 285 , 137 A.2d 661 (1958); Panitz v. Webb, 149 Md. 75 , 130 A. 913 (1925).

1982See, for example, Harris v. State, 237 Md. 299 , 206 A.2d 254 (1965); Howard v. State, 234 Md. 410 , 199 A.2d 611 (1964); Kantor v. Ash, 215 Md. 285 , 137 A.2d 661 (1958); Panitz v. Webb, 149 Md. 75 , 130 A. 913 (1925).

1982See, for example, Harris v. State, 237 Md. 299 , 206 A.2d 254 (1965); Howard v. State, 234 Md. 410 , 199 A.2d 611 (1964); Kantor v. Ash, 215 Md. 285 , 137 A.2d 661 (1958); Panitz v. Webb, 149 Md. 75 , 130 A. 913 (1925).

1982See, for example, Harris v. State, 237 Md. 299 , 206 A.2d 254 (1965); Howard v. State, 234 Md. 410 , 199 A.2d 611 (1964); Kantor v. Ash, 215 Md. 285 , 137 A.2d 661 (1958); Panitz v. Webb, 149 Md. 75 , 130 A. 913 (1925).

1982For example, the Court found that the error was not harmless in Ross v. State, 276 Md. 664, 674 , 350 A.2d 680 (1976) (improper testimony of prior criminal conduct); Brafman v. State, 276 Md. 676, 680-681 , 349 A.2d 632 (1976) (admission of hearsay testimony); Dempsey v. State, 277 Md. 134 , 355 A.2d 455 (1976) (improper jury instruction); Crawford v. State, 285 Md. 431, 456 , 404 A.2d 244 (1979) (error in placing challenged portions of recordings of interrogations before jury); Hillard v. State, 286 Md. 145, 154-159 , 406 A.2d 415 (1979) (receipt of confession in evidence); Green v. State, 28

1982For example, the Court found that the error was not harmless in Ross v. State, 276 Md. 664, 674 , 350 A.2d 680 (1976) (improper testimony of prior criminal conduct); Brafman v. State, 276 Md. 676, 680-681 , 349 A.2d 632 (1976) (admission of hearsay testimony); Dempsey v. State, 277 Md. 134 , 355 A.2d 455 (1976) (improper jury instruction); Crawford v. State, 285 Md. 431, 456 , 404 A.2d 244 (1979) (error in placing challenged portions of recordings of interrogations before jury); Hillard v. State, 286 Md. 145, 154-159 , 406 A.2d 415 (1979) (receipt of confession in evidence); Green v. State, 28

1982Before addressing my specific differences with the majority, therefore, I should point out a generally recognized basic beginning point — since the majority did not — that a judicial infringement upon a defendant’s right of cross-examination addressed to a witness’s credibility is error of constitutional magnitude, and expressly so since Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (1974).

1982Before addressing my specific differences with the majority, therefore, I should point out a generally recognized basic beginning point — since the majority did not — that a judicial infringement upon a defendant's right of cross-examination addressed to a witness's credibility is error of constitutional magnitude, and expressly so since Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308 (1974).

1982For example, the Court found that the error was not harmless in Ross v. State, 276 Md. 664, 674 , 350 A.2d 680 (1976) (improper testimony of prior criminal conduct); Brafman v. State, 276 Md. 676, 680-681 , 349 A.2d 632 (1976) (admission of hearsay testimony); Dempsey v. State, 277 Md. 134 , 355 A.2d 455 (1976) (improper jury instruction); Crawford v. State, 285 Md. 431, 456 , 404 A.2d 244 (1979) (error in placing challenged portions of recordings of interrogations before jury); Hillard v. State, 286 Md. 145, 154-159 , 406 A.2d 415 (1979) (receipt of confession in evidence); Green v. State, 28

1982For example, the Court found that the error was not harmless in Ross v. State, 276 Md. 664, 674 , 350 A.2d 680 (1976) (improper testimony of prior criminal conduct); Brafman v. State, 276 Md. 676, 680-681 , 349 A.2d 632 (1976) (admission of hearsay testimony); Dempsey v. State, 277 Md. 134 , 355 A.2d 455 (1976) (improper jury instruction); Crawford v. State, 285 Md. 431, 456 , 404 A.2d 244 (1979) (error in placing challenged portions of recordings of interrogations before jury); Hillard v. State, 286 Md. 145, 154-159 , 406 A.2d 415 (1979) (receipt of confession in evidence); Green v. State, 28

1982And in any event, the statement must now be read in the light of the character witness statute as construed in Kelley v. State, 288 Md. 298, 302 , 418 A.2d 217 (1980).

1982And in any event, the statement must now be read in the light of the character witness statute as construed in Kelley v. State, 288 Md. 298, 302 , 418 A.2d 217 (1980).