6 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1976–2019 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. Wainegreen2 sentences2016Except in cases of structural error, see, e.g., State v. Waine, 444 Md. 692, 705 , 122 A.3d 294 (2015), an error in a jury instruction is not grounds for reversal if the error is “harmless.” Nottingham v. State, 227 Md.App. 592, 610 , 135 A.3d 541 (2016). 2016Except in cases of structural error, see, e.g., State v. Waine, 444 Md. 692, 705 , 122 A.3d 294 (2015), an error in a jury instruction is not grounds for reversal if the error is “harmless.” Nottingham v. State, 227 Md.App. 592, 610 , 135 A.3d 541 (2016). | 1 | 2 |
Nottingham v. Stategreen2 sentences2016Except in cases of structural error, see, e.g., State v. Waine, 444 Md. 692, 705 , 122 A.3d 294 (2015), an error in a jury instruction is not grounds for reversal if the error is “harmless.” Nottingham v. State, 227 Md.App. 592, 610 , 135 A.3d 541 (2016). 2016Except in cases of structural error, see, e.g., State v. Waine, 444 Md. 692, 705 , 122 A.3d 294 (2015), an error in a jury instruction is not grounds for reversal if the error is “harmless.” Nottingham v. State, 227 Md.App. 592, 610 , 135 A.3d 541 (2016). | 1 | 2 |
Johnson v. Stategreen2 sentences2009See, e.g., Johnson v. State, 310 Md. 681, 686 , 531 A.2d 675 (1987) (stating that only if a party takes exception to an error in a jury instruction does the court have the opportunity to correct it); Morris v. State, 153 Md.App. 480, 509 , 837 A.2d 248 (2003) (noting that “one of the key virtues of the preservation requirement” is that it enables the trial court “to correct an easily correctable mistake”), cert. denied, 380 Md. 618 , 846 A.2d 402 (2004). 2009See, e.g., Johnson v. State, 310 Md. 681, 686 , 531 A.2d 675 (1987) (stating that only if a party takes exception to an error in a jury instruction does the court have the opportunity to correct it); Morris v. State, 153 Md.App. 480, 509 , 837 A.2d 248 (2003) (noting that “one of the key virtues of the preservation requirement” is that it enables the trial court “to correct an easily correctable mistake”), cert. denied, 380 Md. 618 , 846 A.2d 402 (2004). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Brady
green
2 sentences2019Immediately after quoting part of the above dicta in Brady , 393 Md. at 507 -08 , 903 A.2d at 873 , the Majority states: "As such, in the present matter, we do not ascribe any fault to ... 2019Immediately after quoting part of the above dicta in Brady , 393 Md. at 507 -08 , 903 A.2d at 873 , the Majority states: "As such, in the present matter, we do not ascribe any fault to ... | 2 | 2019–2019 |
Morris v. State
green
2 sentences2009See, e.g., Johnson v. State, 310 Md. 681, 686 , 531 A.2d 675 (1987) (stating that only if a party takes exception to an error in a jury instruction does the court have the opportunity to correct it); Morris v. State, 153 Md.App. 480, 509 , 837 A.2d 248 (2003) (noting that “one of the key virtues of the preservation requirement” is that it enables the trial court “to correct an easily correctable mistake”), cert. denied, 380 Md. 618 , 846 A.2d 402 (2004). 2009See, e.g., Johnson v. State, 310 Md. 681, 686 , 531 A.2d 675 (1987) (stating that only if a party takes exception to an error in a jury instruction does the court have the opportunity to correct it); Morris v. State, 153 Md.App. 480, 509 , 837 A.2d 248 (2003) (noting that “one of the key virtues of the preservation requirement” is that it enables the trial court “to correct an easily correctable mistake”), cert. denied, 380 Md. 618 , 846 A.2d 402 (2004). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Dempsey v. State
green
2 sentences1976However, the rule further states that an appellate court “may take cognizance of and correct any plain error in the instructions, material to the rights of the accused even though such error was not objected to ....” See Dempsey v. *70 State, 277 Md. 134, 152 , 355 A. 2d 455 (1976); Dimery v. State, 274 Md. 661 , 338 A. 2d 56 (1975). 1976However, the rule further states that an appellate court “may take cognizance of and correct any plain error in the instructions, material to the rights of the accused even though such error was not objected to ....” See Dempsey v. *70 State, 277 Md. 134, 152 , 355 A. 2d 455 (1976); Dimery v. State, 274 Md. 661 , 338 A. 2d 56 (1975). | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Dimery v. State
green
2 sentences1976However, the rule further states that an appellate court “may take cognizance of and correct any plain error in the instructions, material to the rights of the accused even though such error was not objected to ....” See Dempsey v. *70 State, 277 Md. 134, 152 , 355 A. 2d 455 (1976); Dimery v. State, 274 Md. 661 , 338 A. 2d 56 (1975). 1976However, the rule further states that an appellate court “may take cognizance of and correct any plain error in the instructions, material to the rights of the accused even though such error was not objected to ....” See Dempsey v. *70 State, 277 Md. 134, 152 , 355 A. 2d 455 (1976); Dimery v. State, 274 Md. 661 , 338 A. 2d 56 (1975). | 1 | 1976–1976 |
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.