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.
6 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1977–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Dempsey v. Stategreen2 sentences1978In Squire v. State, 280 Md. 132, 135 , 368 A. 2d 1019, 1020 (1977), the Court of Appeals pointed out that “absent the existence of compelling circumstances, the failure of a defendant to register an objection to a jury instruction pursuant to Rule 756 f [now Rule 757 f] bars our consideration of the matter.” In Dempsey v. State, 277 Md. 134, 142 , 355 A. 2d 455, 459 (1976), the Court pointed out that “an appellate court may in its discretion in an exceptional case take cognizance of plain error even though the matter was not raised in the trial court.” (emphasis added). 1978In Squire v. State, 280 Md. 132, 135 , 368 A. 2d 1019, 1020 (1977), the Court of Appeals pointed out that “absent the existence of compelling circumstances, the failure of a defendant to register an objection to a jury instruction pursuant to Rule 756 f [now Rule 757 f] bars our consideration of the matter.” In Dempsey v. State, 277 Md. 134, 142 , 355 A. 2d 455, 459 (1976), the Court pointed out that “an appellate court may in its discretion in an exceptional case take cognizance of plain error even though the matter was not raised in the trial court.” (emphasis added). | 2 | 2 |
Squire v. Stategreen2 sentences1991Brown v. State, 14 Md.App. 415, 418 , 287 A.2d 62 (1972). “[Ajbsent the existence of compelling circumstances, the failure of a defendant to register an objection to a jury instruction pursuant to Rule 756 f [now Rule 4-325(e)] bars our consideration of the matter.” Squire v. State, 280 Md. 132, 135 , 368 A.2d 1019 (1977). 1991Brown v. State, 14 Md.App. 415, 418 , 287 A.2d 62 (1972). “[Ajbsent the existence of compelling circumstances, the failure of a defendant to register an objection to a jury instruction pursuant to Rule 756 f [now Rule 4-325(e)] bars our consideration of the matter.” Squire v. State, 280 Md. 132, 135 , 368 A.2d 1019 (1977). | 1 | 3 |
Dawkins v. Stategreen2 sentences1999This situation is similar to what occurred in Dawkins v. State, 313 Md. 638, 641 , 547 A.2d 1041, 1042 (1988), where we held an objection to a jury instruction was preserved under the following circumstances: "Following the evidentiary portion of the trial, the court instructed the jury on the elements of possession under § 287(a) and (d). 1999This situation is similar to what occurred in Dawkins v. State, 313 Md. 638, 641 , 547 A.2d 1041, 1042 (1988), where we held an objection to a jury instruction was preserved under the following circumstances: "Following the evidentiary portion of the trial, the court instructed the jury on the elements of possession under § 287(a) and (d). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Gore v. State
green
2 sentences2018This rule "makes clear that an objection to a jury instruction is not preserved for review unless the aggrieved party makes a timely objection after the instruction is given and states the specific ground of objection thereto ." Gore v. State , 309 Md. 203 , 207, 522 A.2d 1338 , 1339 (1987) (emphasis added). 2018This rule "makes clear that an objection to a jury instruction is not preserved for review unless the aggrieved party makes a timely objection after the instruction is given and states the specific ground of objection thereto ." Gore v. State , 309 Md. 203 , 207, 522 A.2d 1338 , 1339 (1987) (emphasis added). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Brown v. State
green
2 sentences1991Brown v. State, 14 Md.App. 415, 418 , 287 A.2d 62 (1972). “[Ajbsent the existence of compelling circumstances, the failure of a defendant to register an objection to a jury instruction pursuant to Rule 756 f [now Rule 4-325(e)] bars our consideration of the matter.” Squire v. State, 280 Md. 132, 135 , 368 A.2d 1019 (1977). 1991Brown v. State, 14 Md.App. 415, 418 , 287 A.2d 62 (1972). “[Ajbsent the existence of compelling circumstances, the failure of a defendant to register an objection to a jury instruction pursuant to Rule 756 f [now Rule 4-325(e)] bars our consideration of the matter.” Squire v. State, 280 Md. 132, 135 , 368 A.2d 1019 (1977). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Williams v. State
green
2 sentences1991In exercising this discretion, “[t]he only hard and fast rule is that there are no hard and fast rules.” Williams v. State, 34 Md.App. 206, 216 , 366 A.2d 399 (1976) (Moylan, J., concurring). 1991In exercising this discretion, “[t]he only hard and fast rule is that there are no hard and fast rules.” Williams v. State, 34 Md.App. 206, 216 , 366 A.2d 399 (1976) (Moylan, J., concurring). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Dimery v. State
green
2 sentences1977However, as Judge Eldridge stated for this Court in Dempsey v. State, 277 Md. 134, 141-42 , 355 A. 2d 455, 459 (1976): “Rule 756 g [does make it clear that] with respect to jury instructions, and as the cases hold with respect to errors of law generally, an appellate court may in its discretion in an exceptional case take cognizance of plain error even though the matter was not raised in the trial court.” See generally Dimery v. State, 274 Md. 661 , 338 A. 2d 56 (1975), cert. denied, 423 U. S. 1074 (1976). 1977However, as Judge Eldridge stated for this Court in Dempsey v. State, 277 Md. 134, 141-42 , 355 A. 2d 455, 459 (1976): “Rule 756 g [does make it clear that] with respect to jury instructions, and as the cases hold with respect to errors of law generally, an appellate court may in its discretion in an exceptional case take cognizance of plain error even though the matter was not raised in the trial court.” See generally Dimery v. State, 274 Md. 661 , 338 A. 2d 56 (1975), cert. denied, 423 U. S. 1074 (1976). | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Peltzman v. Central Gulf Lines, Inc.
green
1 sentence1977However, as Judge Eldridge stated for this Court in Dempsey v. State, 277 Md. 134, 141-42 , 355 A. 2d 455, 459 (1976): “Rule 756 g [does make it clear that] with respect to jury instructions, and as the cases hold with respect to errors of law generally, an appellate court may in its discretion in an exceptional case take cognizance of plain error even though the matter was not raised in the trial court.” See generally Dimery v. State, 274 Md. 661 , 338 A. 2d 56 (1975), cert. denied, 423 U. S. 1074 (1976). | 1 | 1977–1977 |
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.