advisory instruction in Maryland

52 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1932–2016 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.

Followed or applied (25)

Case	Followed	Cited
Bruce v. Stategreen md · 2001 · cited in 11 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 1961–2008 2 sentences 2008In Bruce v. State, supra, 218 Md. at 97-98 , 145 A.2d at 433-434 , after stating that, "when requested in a criminal case," the trial court should "give an advisory instruction on every essential question or point of law," this Court decided that the trial "court properly advised the jury [that] the defendant is ` presumed to be innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and that presumption attends him throughout the trial until overcome by proof establishing his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty.'" (Emphasis added). 2008In Bruce v. State, supra, 218 Md. at 97-98 , 145 A.2d at 433-434 , after stating that, "when requested in a criminal case," the trial court should "give an advisory instruction on every essential question or point of law," this Court decided that the trial "court properly advised the jury [that] the defendant is ` presumed to be innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and that presumption attends him throughout the trial until overcome by proof establishing his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty.'" (Emphasis added).	4	11
Dillon v. Stategreen md · 1976 · cited in 5 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 1977–1998 2 sentences 1998See also Davis v. State, 104 Md.App. 290, 293 , 656 A.2d 326 (1995) (citing Dillon v. State, 277 Md. 571, 584 , 357 A.2d 360 (1976)) (“It is incumbent upon the trial court, on request in a criminal case, to give an advisory instruction on every point of law essential to the crime charged and supported by evidence.”). 1998See also Davis v. State, 104 Md.App. 290, 293 , 656 A.2d 326 (1995) (citing Dillon v. State, 277 Md. 571, 584 , 357 A.2d 360 (1976)) (“It is incumbent upon the trial court, on request in a criminal case, to give an advisory instruction on every point of law essential to the crime charged and supported by evidence.”).	2	5
Slansky v. Stategreen md · 1949 · cited in 4 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 1980–2008 2 sentences 2008See, e.g., Slansky v. State, supra, 192 Md. at 107 , 63 A.2d at 604-605 ("But even though an advisory instruction in a criminal case is not binding on the jury, yet * * * [w]hen an advisory instruction has been given, the judge may prevent counsel from arguing contrary to the instruction"); Vogel v. State, supra, 163 Md. at 272, 276 , 162 A. at 707-708 ("`But whatever powers the Constitution may have conferred upon juries in criminal cases, it has conferred none upon counsel.' * * * It is consistent with the right of the jury to exercise their independent judgment as to the law, in a criminal 2008See, e.g., Slansky v. State, supra, 192 Md. at 107 , 63 A.2d at 604-605 ("But even though an advisory instruction in a criminal case is not binding on the jury, yet * * * [w]hen an advisory instruction has been given, the judge may prevent counsel from arguing contrary to the instruction"); Vogel v. State, supra, 163 Md. at 272, 276 , 162 A. at 707-708 ("`But whatever powers the Constitution may have conferred upon juries in criminal cases, it has conferred none upon counsel.' * * * It is consistent with the right of the jury to exercise their independent judgment as to the law, in a criminal	2	4
Davis v. Stategreen mdctspecapp · 1995 · cited in 2 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 1998–1999 2 sentences 1999See also Hof v. State, 337 Md. 581, 612 , 655 A.2d 370 (1995) (Rule 4-325(c) “has been interpreted to require that a requested instruction be given only when there is evidence in the record to support it.”); Davis v. State, 104 Md.App. 290, 293 , 656 A.2d 326 (1995) (“It is incumbent upon the trial court, on request in a criminal case, to give an advisory instruction on every point of law essential to the crime charged and supported by evidence.”). 1999See also Hof v. State, 337 Md. 581, 612 , 655 A.2d 370 (1995) (Rule 4-325(c) “has been interpreted to require that a requested instruction be given only when there is evidence in the record to support it.”); Davis v. State, 104 Md.App. 290, 293 , 656 A.2d 326 (1995) (“It is incumbent upon the trial court, on request in a criminal case, to give an advisory instruction on every point of law essential to the crime charged and supported by evidence.”).	2	2
Vogel v. Stategreen md · 1932 · cited in 3 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 1932–2008 2 sentences 2008See, e.g., Slansky v. State, supra, 192 Md. at 107 , 63 A.2d at 604-605 ("But even though an advisory instruction in a criminal case is not binding on the jury, yet * * * [w]hen an advisory instruction has been given, the judge may prevent counsel from arguing contrary to the instruction"); Vogel v. State, supra, 163 Md. at 272, 276 , 162 A. at 707-708 ("`But whatever powers the Constitution may have conferred upon juries in criminal cases, it has conferred none upon counsel.' * * * It is consistent with the right of the jury to exercise their independent judgment as to the law, in a criminal 2008See, e.g., Slansky v. State, supra, 192 Md. at 107 , 63 A.2d at 604-605 ("But even though an advisory instruction in a criminal case is not binding on the jury, yet * * * [w]hen an advisory instruction has been given, the judge may prevent counsel from arguing contrary to the instruction"); Vogel v. State, supra, 163 Md. at 272, 276 , 162 A. at 707-708 ("`But whatever powers the Constitution may have conferred upon juries in criminal cases, it has conferred none upon counsel.' * * * It is consistent with the right of the jury to exercise their independent judgment as to the law, in a criminal	1	3
Bell v. Stategreen · 1881 · cited in 3 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 1949–2008 2 sentences 2008On the other hand, it seems hardly compatible with the relationship of members of the bar to the court ... to permit them to combat its formal rulings in their arguments to the jury. * * * When an advisory instruction is considered necessary by the court, but is deferred until the argument to the jury is completed, the problem of protecting the jury’s prerogative ... and of insuring proper respect for the authority of the court, is greatly simplified”); Nolan v. State, 157 Md. 332, 340 , 146 A. 268, 271 (1929); Kelly v. State, supra, 151 Md. at 98-99 , 133 A. at 903; Bell, alias Kimball v. The 2008On the other hand, it seems hardly compatible with the relationship of members of the bar to the court. . . to permit them to combat its formal rulings in their arguments to the jury. * * * When an advisory instruction is considered necessary by the court, but is deferred until the argument to the jury is completed, the problem of protecting the jury's prerogative . . . and of insuring proper respect for the authority of the court, is greatly simplified"); Nolan v. State, 157 Md. 332, 340 , 146 A. 268, 271 (1929); Kelly v. State, supra, 151 Md. at 98-99 , 133 A. at 903; Bell, alias Kimball v.	1	3
Hardison v. Stategreen md · 1961 · cited in 2 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 1975–2001 2 sentences 2001See Patterson v. State, 356 Md. 677, 683-84 , 741 A.2d 1119, 1122 (1999) (stating that the defendant is entitled to instructions on the law when generated by the evidence); Binnie v. State, 321 Md. 572, 582-83 , 583 A.2d 1037, 1042 (1991) (stating that the trial judge must give instructions that are fairly supported by the evidence); Sims v. State, 319 Md. 540, 550 , 573 A.2d 1317, 1321 (1990) (holding that a defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on any theory of defense that is fairly supported by the evidence, even if several theories are inconsistent); Hardison v. State, 226 Md. 53, 6 2001See Patterson v. State, 356 Md. 677, 683-84 , 741 A.2d 1119, 1122 (1999) (stating that the defendant is entitled to instructions on the law when generated by the evidence); Binnie v. State, 321 Md. 572, 582-83 , 583 A.2d 1037, 1042 (1991) (stating that the trial judge must give instructions that are fairly supported by the evidence); Sims v. State, 319 Md. 540, 550 , 573 A.2d 1317, 1321 (1990) (holding that a defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on any theory of defense that is fairly supported by the evidence, even if several theories are inconsistent); Hardison v. State, 226 Md. 53, 6	1	2
Mason v. Stategreen mdctspecapp · 1971 · cited in 2 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 1972–1992 2 sentences 1992The trial court should have granted Allen’s requested instructions relating to Westwood’s convictions, drug use, and status as an informer because the evidence was sufficient, Mason v. State, 12 Md.App. 655, 661 , 280 A.2d 753 , cert. denied, 263 Md. 717 (1971) (“It is true that it is incumbent upon the court, when requested in a criminal case, to give an advisory instruction on every essential question or point of law supported by the evidence.”), and the general instruction did not cover these topics in the requested detail. 1992The trial court should have granted Allen’s requested instructions relating to Westwood’s convictions, drug use, and status as an informer because the evidence was sufficient, Mason v. State, 12 Md.App. 655, 661 , 280 A.2d 753 , cert. denied, 263 Md. 717 (1971) (“It is true that it is incumbent upon the court, when requested in a criminal case, to give an advisory instruction on every essential question or point of law supported by the evidence.”), and the general instruction did not cover these topics in the requested detail.	1	2
Halcomb v. Stategreen mdctspecapp · 1969 · cited in 2 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 1969–1970 2 sentences 1970Halcomb v. State, 6 Md. 1969See Halcomb v. State, 6 Md.	1	2
Rose v. Clarkgreen scotus · 1986 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016 2 sentences 2016See Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570, 577-78 , 106 S.Ct. 3101 , 92 L.Ed.2d 460 (1986) (noting that, when a defendant is deprived of those constitutional protections that constitute structural error, “a criminal trial cannot reliably serve its function as a vehicle for determination of guilt or innocence, and no criminal punishment may be regarded as fundamentally fair” (citation omitted)). 709 It also bears emphasis, moving forward, that trial courts at the time of Respondent’s trial were required to give an advisory instruction under both Article 23 and Maryland Rule 757b. 5 It is virtually certa 2016See Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570, 577-78 , 106 S.Ct. 3101 , 92 L.Ed.2d 460 (1986) (noting that, when a defendant is deprived of those constitutional protections that constitute structural error, “a criminal trial cannot reliably serve its function as a vehicle for determination of guilt or innocence, and no criminal punishment may be regarded as fundamentally fair” (citation omitted)). 709 It also bears emphasis, moving forward, that trial courts at the time of Respondent’s trial were required to give an advisory instruction under both Article 23 and Maryland Rule 757b. 5 It is virtually certa	1	1
Stewart v. LaGrandgreen scotus · 1999 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008 2 sentences 2008See Stewart v. LaGrand, 526 U.S. 115, 119 , 119 S.Ct. 1018, 1021 , 143 L.Ed.2d 196 (1999) (holding that a constitutional claim is not novel where there is an ongoing debate about the issue); Cole v. Stevenson, 620 F.2d 1055, 1062 (4th Cir.1980) (holding that a change in law did not excuse waiver). 2008See Stewart v. LaGrand, 526 U.S. 115, 119 , 119 S.Ct. 1018, 1021 , 143 L.Ed.2d 196 (1999) (holding that a constitutional claim is not novel where there is an ongoing debate about the issue); Cole v. Stevenson, 620 F.2d 1055, 1062 (4th Cir.1980) (holding that a change in law did not excuse waiver).	1	1
Nolan v. Stategreen md · 1929 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008 2 sentences 2008On the other hand, it seems hardly compatible with the relationship of members of the bar to the court. . . to permit them to combat its formal rulings in their arguments to the jury. * * * When an advisory instruction is considered necessary by the court, but is deferred until the argument to the jury is completed, the problem of protecting the jury's prerogative . . . and of insuring proper respect for the authority of the court, is greatly simplified"); Nolan v. State, 157 Md. 332, 340 , 146 A. 268, 271 (1929); Kelly v. State, supra, 151 Md. at 98-99 , 133 A. at 903; Bell, alias Kimball v. 2008On the other hand, it seems hardly compatible with the relationship of members of the bar to the court. . . to permit them to combat its formal rulings in their arguments to the jury. * * * When an advisory instruction is considered necessary by the court, but is deferred until the argument to the jury is completed, the problem of protecting the jury's prerogative . . . and of insuring proper respect for the authority of the court, is greatly simplified"); Nolan v. State, 157 Md. 332, 340 , 146 A. 268, 271 (1929); Kelly v. State, supra, 151 Md. at 98-99 , 133 A. at 903; Bell, alias Kimball v.	1	1
Klein v. Stategreen md · 1926 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008 2 sentences 2008On the other hand, it seems hardly compatible with the relationship of members of the bar to the court ... to permit them to combat its formal rulings in their arguments to the jury. * * * When an advisory instruction is considered necessary by the court, but is deferred until the argument to the jury is completed, the problem of protecting the jury’s prerogative ... and of insuring proper respect for the authority of the court, is greatly simplified”); Nolan v. State, 157 Md. 332, 340 , 146 A. 268, 271 (1929); Kelly v. State, supra, 151 Md. at 98-99 , 133 A. at 903; Bell, alias Kimball v. The 2008On the other hand, it seems hardly compatible with the relationship of members of the bar to the court. . . to permit them to combat its formal rulings in their arguments to the jury. * * * When an advisory instruction is considered necessary by the court, but is deferred until the argument to the jury is completed, the problem of protecting the jury's prerogative . . . and of insuring proper respect for the authority of the court, is greatly simplified"); Nolan v. State, 157 Md. 332, 340 , 146 A. 268, 271 (1929); Kelly v. State, supra, 151 Md. at 98-99 , 133 A. at 903; Bell, alias Kimball v.	1	1
James Lewis Cole v. L. v. Stevenson, Superintendent and Attorney General of the State of North Carolina, Rufus L. Edmistengreen ca4 · 1980 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008 2 sentences 2008See Stewart v. LaGrand, 526 U.S. 115, 119 , 119 S.Ct. 1018, 1021 , 143 L.Ed.2d 196 (1999) (holding that a constitutional claim is not novel where there is an ongoing debate about the issue); Cole v. Stevenson, 620 F.2d 1055, 1062 (4th Cir.1980) (holding that a change in law did not excuse waiver). 2008See Stewart v. LaGrand, 526 U.S. 115, 119 , 119 S.Ct. 1018, 1021 , 143 L.Ed.2d 196 (1999) (holding that a constitutional claim is not novel where there is an ongoing debate about the issue); Cole v. Stevenson, 620 F.2d 1055, 1062 (4th Cir.1980) (holding that a change in law did not excuse waiver).	1	1
Robertson v. Stategreen md · 1983 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008 2 sentences 2008In Robertson v. State, 295 Md. 688, 689 , 457 A.2d 826, 826 (1983), we held that the "defendant's counsel made clear to the trial judge that even though the jury was the judge of the law under Article 23 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights, he was entitled to an instruction that the court's comments on the burden of proof were not merely advisory but were binding upon the jury. 2008In Robertson v. State, 295 Md. 688, 689 , 457 A.2d 826, 826 (1983), we held that the "defendant's counsel made clear to the trial judge that even though the jury was the judge of the law under Article 23 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights, he was entitled to an instruction that the court's comments on the burden of proof were not merely advisory but were binding upon the jury.	1	1
Lester v. Commonwealthgreen kyctapphigh · 1931 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2001–2001 2 sentences 2001See Lesler v. Commonwealth, 239 Ky. 703 , 40 S. W. 2d 306 (1931). 2001See Lesler v. Commonwealth, 239 Ky. 703 , 40 S. W. 2d 306 (1931).	1	1
Patterson v. Stategreen md · 1999 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2001–2001	1	1
Sims v. Stategreen md · 1990 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2001–2001	1	1
Binnie v. Stategreen md · 1991 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 2001–2001 2 sentences 2001See Patterson v. State, 356 Md. 677, 683-84 , 741 A.2d 1119, 1122 (1999) (stating that the defendant is entitled to instructions on the law when generated by the evidence); Binnie v. State, 321 Md. 572, 582-83 , 583 A.2d 1037, 1042 (1991) (stating that the trial judge must give instructions that are fairly supported by the evidence); Sims v. State, 319 Md. 540, 550 , 573 A.2d 1317, 1321 (1990) (holding that a defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on any theory of defense that is fairly supported by the evidence, even if several theories are inconsistent); Hardison v. State, 226 Md. 53, 6 2001See Patterson v. State, 356 Md. 677, 683-84 , 741 A.2d 1119, 1122 (1999) (stating that the defendant is entitled to instructions on the law when generated by the evidence); Binnie v. State, 321 Md. 572, 582-83 , 583 A.2d 1037, 1042 (1991) (stating that the trial judge must give instructions that are fairly supported by the evidence); Sims v. State, 319 Md. 540, 550 , 573 A.2d 1317, 1321 (1990) (holding that a defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on any theory of defense that is fairly supported by the evidence, even if several theories are inconsistent); Hardison v. State, 226 Md. 53, 6	1	1
Hof v. Stategreen md · 1995 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 1999–1999	1	1
Beck v. Mangelsgreen md · 1995 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 1999–1999	1	1
Stevenson v. Statered md · 1980 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 1982–1982	1	1
United States v. Edward Stulgagreen ca6 · 1978 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 1979–1979	1	1
Lang v. Stategreen mdctspecapp · 1969 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 1976–1976	1	1
Rowe v. Stategreen md · 1964 · cited in 1 Maryland opinions naming this issue, 1966–1966	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (41)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. Adams green md · 2008 2 sentences 2016Id. at 256-61, 958 A.2d 295 . 2015Id. at 266 , 958 A.2d 295 .	3	2015–2016
Parker v. State green mdctspecapp · 1969 2 sentences 1987Dillon v. State, 27 Md.App. 579, 588 , 342 A.2d 677 (1975), aff'd, 277 Md. 571 , 357 A.2d 360 (1976); Parker v. State, 7 Md.App. 167, 184-86 , 254 A.2d 381 (1969), cert. denied, Parker v. Maryland, 402 U.S. 984 , 29 L.Ed.2d 150 , 91 S.Ct. 1670 (1971). 1987Dillon v. State, 27 Md.App. 579, 588 , 342 A.2d 677 (1975), aff'd, 277 Md. 571 , 357 A.2d 360 (1976); Parker v. State, 7 Md.App. 167, 184-86 , 254 A.2d 381 (1969), cert. denied, Parker v. Maryland, 402 U.S. 984 , 29 L.Ed.2d 150 , 91 S.Ct. 1670 (1971).	3	1975–1987
Malloy v. State neutral mdctspecapp · 1968 2 sentences 1972We hold there was no error in the admission of the challenged exhibits. (7) In considering the contentions concerning the charge to the jury we observe that although it is encumbent upon the court when requested in a criminal case to give an advisory instruction on every essential question or point of law supported by the evidence, Malloy v. State, 4 Md. 1969Malloy v. State, 4 Md.	3	1968–1972
Unger v. State green md · 2012 2 sentences 2015Accordingly, after this Court’s decision in Unger v. State, 427 Md. 383 (2012), the circuit court in the present case did not abuse its discretion to reopen the case to relitigate the constitutionality of a conviction based on a guilty verdict by a jury that was given an advisory only instruction. 2015Accordingly, after this Court’s decision in Unger v. State, 427 Md. 383 (2012), the circuit court in the present case did not abuse its discretion to reopen the case to relitigate the constitutionality of a conviction based on a guilty verdict by a jury that was given an advisory only instruction.	2	2015–2015
Noel v. State green md · 1953 2 sentences 1989Noel v. State, [ 202 Md. 247 ] at 252 [ 96 A.2d 7 ]; Colbert v. United States, 146 F.2d 10 (D.C.Cir.1944). 1989Noel v. State, [ 202 Md. 247 ] at 252 [ 96 A.2d 7 ]; Colbert v. United States, 146 F.2d 10 (D.C.Cir.1944).	2	1961–1989
Colbert v. United States green cadc · 1944 2 sentences 1989Noel v. State, [ 202 Md. 247 ] at 252 [ 96 A.2d 7 ]; Colbert v. United States, 146 F.2d 10 (D.C.Cir.1944). 1976Noel v. State, supra, at 252; Colbert v. United States, 146 F. 2d 10 (D.C.	2	1976–1989
Smith v. Brantley neutral scotus · 1971 2 sentences 1987Dillon v. State, 27 Md.App. 579, 588 , 342 A.2d 677 (1975), aff'd, 277 Md. 571 , 357 A.2d 360 (1976); Parker v. State, 7 Md.App. 167, 184-86 , 254 A.2d 381 (1969), cert. denied, Parker v. Maryland, 402 U.S. 984 , 29 L.Ed.2d 150 , 91 S.Ct. 1670 (1971). 1980Parker v. State, 7 Md.App. 167 , 254 A.2d 381 , cert. den. 91 S. Ct. 1670 , 29 L.Ed.2d 150 .	2	1980–1987
Giles v. State green md · 1962 2 sentences 1975In Giles v. State, 229 Md. 370, 386-87 , 183 A.2d 359 (1962), appeal dismissed, 372 U.S. 767 (1963), there was "a contention that the defendants were denied due process and equal protection of the law by the failure of the trial court to give an advisory instruction as to the law, even though the defendants made no request therefor." It was claimed "that even if a jury may determine what principles of law are to be applied in a criminal case, it may not in a capital case be left without any instruction as to the law." The Court pointed out that "the claim overlook[ed] the fact that a defendant 1975In Giles v. State, 229 Md. 370, 386-87 , 183 A.2d 359 (1962), appeal dismissed, 372 U.S. 767 (1963), there was "a contention that the defendants were denied due process and equal protection of the law by the failure of the trial court to give an advisory instruction as to the law, even though the defendants made no request therefor." It was claimed "that even if a jury may determine what principles of law are to be applied in a criminal case, it may not in a capital case be left without any instruction as to the law." The Court pointed out that "the claim overlook[ed] the fact that a defendant	2	1965–1975
Schanker v. State green md · 1955 2 sentences 1965XV, sec. 5, of the Maryland Constitution did not conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which involved a constitutional question as in Franklin, supra. However, in considering sec. 5, the Court cited Bell v. State, supra, for the proposition that “When an advisory instruction has been given, the judge may prevent counsel from arguing contrary to the instruction.” (at p. 107 of 192 Md.) Probably because of the conflict in the cases, this Court as of January 1, 1950, adopted Rule 6(e) (later Rule 739 e and now Rule 756 e), which expressly provides that i 1965XV, sec. 5, of the Maryland Constitution did not conflict with the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which involved a constitutional question as in Franklin, supra. However, in considering sec. 5, the Court cited Bell v. State, supra, for the proposition that “When an advisory instruction has been given, the judge may prevent counsel from arguing contrary to the instruction.” (at p. 107 of 192 Md.) Probably because of the conflict in the cases, this Court as of January 1, 1950, adopted Rule 6(e) (later Rule 739 e and now Rule 756 e), which expressly provides that i	2	1965–1975
Gaskins v. State green mdctspecapp · 1969 2 sentences 1971Gaskins v. State, 7 Md. 1969Gaskins v. State, 7 Md.	2	1969–1971
Huber v. State green mdctspecapp · 1967 2 sentences 1968Bruce v. State, 218 Md. 87, 97 , 145 A. 2d 428 , Huber v. State, 2 Md. 1968Bruce v. State, 218 Md. 87 ; Huber v. State, 2 Md.	2	1968–1968
Schowgurow v. State green md · 1965 2 sentences 2016Cf. Schowgurow v. State, 240 Md. 121, 125-26 , 213 A.2d 475 (1965) (noting that “[t]he conclusion is inescapable” that the jury at the petitioner’s trial was required to declare a belief in God because Article 36, at that time, imposed such a requirement and there exists a “strong presumption” that judges perform their duties). 2016Cf. Schowgurow v. State, 240 Md. 121, 125-26 , 213 A.2d 475 (1965) (noting that “[t]he conclusion is inescapable” that the jury at the petitioner’s trial was required to declare a belief in God because Article 36, at that time, imposed such a requirement and there exists a “strong presumption” that judges perform their duties).	1	2016–2016
State v. Hutchinson green md · 1980 1 sentence 2009Appellant concedes that his counsel failed to properly object to the alleged advisory instruction; however, he argues that this circumstance warrants our discretion to overlook failure to preserve where the error is “compelling, extraordinary, exceptional or fundamental.” Hutchinson, 287 Md. at 203, 411 A.2d 1035 .	1	2009–2009
King v. State green mdctspecapp · 1977	1	1997–1997
Woodell v. State green md · 1960	1	1992–1992
Dillon v. State green mdctspecapp · 1975	1	1987–1987
Zitzer v. California green scotus · 1971	1	1987–1987
Bing Fa Yuen v. State green mdctspecapp · 1979	1	1984–1984
Hamilton and Fletcher v. State green md · 1972	1	1980–1980
England and Edwards v. State green md · 1975	1	1979–1979
Couser v. State green mdctspecapp · 1977	1	1979–1979
Peterson v. State green mdctspecapp · 1972	1	1978–1978
Raley v. State green mdctspecapp · 1976	1	1977–1977
State Ex Rel. Sonner v. Shearin green md · 1974	1	1976–1976
Murray v. Pennsylvania green scotus · 1969	1	1976–1976
Braxton v. State green mdctspecapp · 1971	1	1976–1976
Weigner v. Russell green scotus · 1963	1	1975–1975
Carter v. State green mdctspecapp · 1972	1	1975–1975
Mumford v. State green mdctspecapp · 1974	1	1975–1975
Evans v. State green mdctspecapp · 1975	1	1975–1975
Harris v. State neutral mdctspecapp · 1971	1	1972–1972
Mock v. State green mdctspecapp · 1968	1	1971–1971
Gordon v. State neutral mdctspecapp · 1968	1	1969–1969
Tipton v. State green mdctspecapp · 1967	1	1969–1969
Barger v. State green md · 1964	1	1966–1966
Wilkerson v. State green md · 1937	1	1965–1965
Franklin v. State green · 1858	1	1965–1965
Bennett v. State green md · 1963	1	1965–1965
Kain v. State green md · 1960	1	1961–1961
Davis v. Patton neutral md · 1862	1	1949–1949

Where else courts name it

MD 52 (1932–2016) FL 45 (1977–2025) ID 12 (1923–1982) AZ 8 (1995–2025) TN 5 (2009–2014) NV 5 (1981–2019) CA 3 (2013–2026) NY 2 (1930–2021) MN 2 (1983–2018) OR 2 (2012–2014) SD 2 (1993–1993)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check