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 2009–2026 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Terry v. Stategreen2 sentences2009We have held that the opened door doctrine applies in the context of opening statements, see Terry v. State, 332 Md. 329, 337 , 631 A.2d 424, 428 (1993) (noting that, although the opening statement is not evidence, “the general principles involved in allowing a party to ‘meet fire with fire’ are applicable”), and we see no reason why it should not apply in the context of closing arguments as well. 8 Here, as we have noted, defense counsel, in closing argument, permissibly drew the jury’s attention to the absences of Wali Henderson, Antonio Corprew, Lewis “Man-Man” Cochran, and others. 2009We have held that the opened door doctrine applies in the context of opening statements, see Terry v. State, 332 Md. 329, 337 , 631 A.2d 424, 428 (1993) (noting that, although the opening statement is not evidence, “the general principles involved in allowing a party to ‘meet fire with fire’ are applicable”), and we see no reason why it should not apply in the context of closing arguments as well. 8 Here, as we have noted, defense counsel, in closing argument, permissibly drew the jury’s attention to the absences of Wali Henderson, Antonio Corprew, Lewis “Man-Man” Cochran, and others. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Heathgreen1 sentence2026See State v. Heath, 464 Md. 445, 459 (2019). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Mitchell v. State
green
2 sentences2016Id. at 388 , 969 A.2d 989 (citing Terry v. State, 332 Md. 329, 337 , 631 A.2d 424 (1993)). 2016Id. at 388 , 969 A.2d 989 (citing Terry v. State, 332 Md. 329, 337 , 631 A.2d 424 (1993)). | 2 | 2010–2016 |
Little v. Schneider
green
2 sentences2018Utilizing the opened door doctrine is a method by which we allow parties to "meet fire with fire" when they introduce "otherwise inadmissible evidence in response to evidence put forth by the opposing side." Little v. Schneider , 434 Md. 150 , 157, 73 A.3d 1074 (2013). 2018Utilizing the opened door doctrine is a method by which we allow parties to "meet fire with fire" when they introduce "otherwise inadmissible evidence in response to evidence put forth by the opposing side." Little v. Schneider , 434 Md. 150 , 157, 73 A.3d 1074 (2013). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Griffin v. California
green
2 sentences2016The opened door doctrine is limited, however, by the constitutionally-based prohibition against “burden shifting,” which derives from the landmark Supreme Court decision in Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609, 614 , 85 S.Ct. 1229 , 14 L.Ed.2d 106 (1965). 2016The opened door doctrine is limited, however, by the constitutionally-based prohibition against “burden shifting,” which derives from the landmark Supreme Court decision in Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609, 614 , 85 S.Ct. 1229 , 14 L.Ed.2d 106 (1965). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Lee v. State
green
2 sentences2010Invited Response Doctrine We turn next to the State’s argument that the comments were proper pursuant to the “invited response doctrine.” The Court of Appeals has described the invited response doctrine as involving “a prosecutorial argument ... made in reasonable response to improper attacks by defense counsel.” Lee, 405 Md. at 163 , 950 A.2d 125 (quoting Spain, 386 Md. at 157 n. 7, 872 A.2d 25 ). 2010Invited Response Doctrine We turn next to the State’s argument that the comments were proper pursuant to the “invited response doctrine.” The Court of Appeals has described the invited response doctrine as involving “a prosecutorial argument ... made in reasonable response to improper attacks by defense counsel.” Lee, 405 Md. at 163 , 950 A.2d 125 (quoting Spain, 386 Md. at 157 n. 7, 872 A.2d 25 ). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Spain v. State
green
2 sentences2010Invited Response Doctrine We turn next to the State’s argument that the comments were proper pursuant to the “invited response doctrine.” The Court of Appeals has described the invited response doctrine as involving “a prosecutorial argument ... made in reasonable response to improper attacks by defense counsel.” Lee, 405 Md. at 163 , 950 A.2d 125 (quoting Spain, 386 Md. at 157 n. 7, 872 A.2d 25 ). 2010Invited Response Doctrine We turn next to the State’s argument that the comments were proper pursuant to the “invited response doctrine.” The Court of Appeals has described the invited response doctrine as involving “a prosecutorial argument ... made in reasonable response to improper attacks by defense counsel.” Lee, 405 Md. at 163 , 950 A.2d 125 (quoting Spain, 386 Md. at 157 n. 7, 872 A.2d 25 ). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Conyers v. State
green
2 sentences2010The opened door doctrine, however, is limited to “ ‘evidence that is competent, but otherwise irrelevant.’ ” Grier v. State, 351 Md. 241, 260 , 718 A.2d 211 (1998) (quoting Conyers, 345 Md. at 545 , 693 A.2d 781 ). 2010The opened door doctrine, however, is limited to “ ‘evidence that is competent, but otherwise irrelevant.’ ” Grier v. State, 351 Md. 241, 260 , 718 A.2d 211 (1998) (quoting Conyers, 345 Md. at 545 , 693 A.2d 781 ). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Grier v. State
green
2 sentences2010The opened door doctrine, however, is limited to “ ‘evidence that is competent, but otherwise irrelevant.’ ” Grier v. State, 351 Md. 241, 260 , 718 A.2d 211 (1998) (quoting Conyers, 345 Md. at 545 , 693 A.2d 781 ). 2010The opened door doctrine, however, is limited to “ ‘evidence that is competent, but otherwise irrelevant.’ ” Grier v. State, 351 Md. 241, 260 , 718 A.2d 211 (1998) (quoting Conyers, 345 Md. at 545 , 693 A.2d 781 ). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Degren v. State
green
2 sentences2010Rather, “ ‘reversal is only required where it appears that the remarks of the prosecutor actually misled the jury or were likely to have misled or influenced the jury to the prejudice of the accused.’ ” Spain, 386 Md. at 158 , 872 A.2d 25 (quoting Degren, 352 Md. at 430-31 , 722 A.2d 887 ). 2010Rather, “ ‘reversal is only required where it appears that the remarks of the prosecutor actually misled the jury or were likely to have misled or influenced the jury to the prejudice of the accused.’ ” Spain, 386 Md. at 158 , 872 A.2d 25 (quoting Degren, 352 Md. at 430-31 , 722 A.2d 887 ). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
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.