6 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 2004–2024 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
DeLeon v. Stategreen2 sentences2017We have stated that “[t]he determination of whether evidence is relevant is a matter of law, to be reviewed de novo by an appellate court.” DeLeon v. State, 407 Md. 16, 20 , 962 A.2d 383, 385 (2008). 13 Here, the trial court asked defense counsel “what are [the work records] relevant to?” After considering argument from defense counsel regarding the records’ proffered relevance, the trial court stated “I’m not going to allow it.” Based on this exchange, we determine that the trial court excluded the records on relevance grounds. 2017We have stated that “[t]he determination of whether evidence is relevant is a matter of law, to be reviewed de novo by an appellate court.” DeLeon v. State, 407 Md. 16, 20 , 962 A.2d 383, 385 (2008). 13 Here, the trial court asked defense counsel “what are [the work records] relevant to?” After considering argument from defense counsel regarding the records’ proffered relevance, the trial court stated “I’m not going to allow it.” Based on this exchange, we determine that the trial court excluded the records on relevance grounds. | 1 | 1 |
Frye v. United Statesred2 sentences2008The State offered Dr. Burgess as an expert witness in order to explain how the perceived aberrant behavior of victims of sexual assault can be explained as a result of "rape trauma syndrome." In Reed, 283 Md. at 374 , 391 A.2d at 364 , this Court was asked to rule on the admissibility of voice identification testimony based on the analysis of spectrograms, otherwise known as "voiceprints." In concluding that "voiceprint" analysis was inadmissible in Maryland courts as evidence of voice identification, we adopted the test for establishing the reliability of scientific methodology articulated in 2008The State offered Dr. Burgess as an expert witness in order to explain how the perceived aberrant behavior of victims of sexual assault can be explained as a result of “rape trauma syndrome.” In Reed, 283 Md. at 374 , 391 A.2d at 364 , this Court was asked to rule on the admissibility of voice identification testimony based on the analysis of spectrograms, otherwise known as “voiceprints.” In concluding that “voiceprint” analysis was inadmissible in Maryland courts as evidence of voice identifica tion, we adopted the test for establishing the reliability of scientific methodology articulated i | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
MacKall v. State
green
2 sentences2024Citing to Mackall v. State, 283 Md. 100 (1978), defense counsel asserted that “the State ha[d] to prove beyond a reasonable doubt . . . that the purported deadly weapon did not fall within the exception[.]” The court asked defense counsel if he “want[ed] to argue any other counts[,]” to which Appellant clarified that he would argue for judgment of acquittal “for the theft counts, Count 2, Count 3, and Count 4 – I’m sorry, not Count 2. 2024Citing to Mackall v. State, 283 Md. 100 (1978), defense counsel asserted that “the State ha[d] to prove beyond a reasonable doubt . . . that the purported deadly weapon did not fall within the exception[.]” The court asked defense counsel if he “want[ed] to argue any other counts[,]” to which Appellant clarified that he would argue for judgment of acquittal “for the theft counts, Count 2, Count 3, and Count 4 – I’m sorry, not Count 2. | 2 | 2024–2024 |
Moody v. State
green
1 sentence2022The defendant didn’t raise any objection, and this Court found “[t]hey essentially consented to the . . . postponement.” Id. at 374 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Reed v. State
green
2 sentences2008The State offered Dr. Burgess as an expert witness in order to explain how the perceived aberrant behavior of victims of sexual assault can be explained as a result of "rape trauma syndrome." In Reed, 283 Md. at 374 , 391 A.2d at 364 , this Court was asked to rule on the admissibility of voice identification testimony based on the analysis of spectrograms, otherwise known as "voiceprints." In concluding that "voiceprint" analysis was inadmissible in Maryland courts as evidence of voice identification, we adopted the test for establishing the reliability of scientific methodology articulated in 2008The State offered Dr. Burgess as an expert witness in order to explain how the perceived aberrant behavior of victims of sexual assault can be explained as a result of "rape trauma syndrome." In Reed, 283 Md. at 374 , 391 A.2d at 364 , this Court was asked to rule on the admissibility of voice identification testimony based on the analysis of spectrograms, otherwise known as "voiceprints." In concluding that "voiceprint" analysis was inadmissible in Maryland courts as evidence of voice identification, we adopted the test for establishing the reliability of scientific methodology articulated in | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Squire v. State
green
2 sentences2004We disagree with appellant’s assertion that this case is like Squire v. State, 280 Md. 132 , 368 A.2d 1019 (1977). 2004We disagree with appellant’s assertion that this case is like Squire v. State, 280 Md. 132 , 368 A.2d 1019 (1977). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
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.