Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

At issue in this case was when "meaningful trial proceedings" begin for purposes of Md. Rule 4-215(e) regarding a defendant's request to discharge counsel. Defendant in this case requested to discharge counsel preceding voir dire the morning before trial. After roll call of the jury was taken, the judge excused the venire panel and allowed Petitioner to discharge counsel and proceed pro se. Defendant was tried and convicted. The court of special appeals affirmed, holding that, because meaningful trial proceedings had begun, Rule 4-215(e) did not apply to Defendant's request to discharge counsel. Therefore, the court of special appeals reviewed the trial judge's decision for abuse of discretion, finding none. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the court of special appeals correctly held that once the venire panel was summoned to the courtroom, meaningful trial proceedings had begun; and (2) therefore, the court of appeals did not err in holding Rule 4-215(e) did not apply to Defendant's request to discharge his counsel.

Defendant was on probation for a drunken driving offense when his DNA was collected for a separate murder investigation. The DNA was taken from saliva that Defendant left on a straw in the course of complying with an alcohol monitoring program mandated by the terms of his probation. The DNA test resulted in incriminating evidence against Defendant. The State introduced the DNA and lab report into evidence, and Defendant was convicted of involuntary manslaughter. The court of special appeals affirmed, concluding that Defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the testing straw or the DNA on it, and therefore, the seizure of Defendant's DNA without a warrant did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) Defendant's Fourth Amendment rights were not violated when the State recovered his DNA from the straw utilized for the mandatory test; and (2) the evidence was sufficient to sustain Defendant's conviction.

Father filed for divorce from Mother. In that proceeding, the parties contested physical and legal custody of their daughters. Prior to the merits hearing, a circuit court judge ordered preparation by court-related personnel a custody investigation report to evaluate the custodial abilities of each parent. The report was completed one week before the merits hearing, and Mother's counsel was able to review the report for only ninety minutes. As a consequence, Mother's attorney moved to exclude the report. The circuit court denied the motion. The judge then granted a divorce and awarded custody of the children to Father with visitation to Mother. The court of special appeals affirmed. At issue on appeal was whether the circuit court's unwritten policy that limits counsel of record in child custody proceedings to viewing custody investigation reports only in person in the clerk's office during normal business hours was viable. Without affirming or reversing, the Court of Appeals remanded for supplementation of the record as to the full contours of the relevant policy.

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of manslaughter by motor vehicle, participating in a race or speed contest, and failing to remain at the scene of an accident resulting in death. Defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court unduly restricted his counsel during closing argument by limiting which comparative standards of proof he could argue to the jury. The court of special appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed because the trial court's refusal to allow a discussion of extraneous legal standards was not an abuse of its broad discretion in controlling the scope of closing argument so as to avoid potential confusion of the jury.

Respondent was injured in an automobile collision involving Norman Iglehart while both were acting within the scope of their employment with the Board of Education of Prince George's County. The workers' compensation commission awarded Respondent compensation. Subsequently, Respondent filed a complaint against Iglehart and the Board (collectively, Petitioners) seeking damages as a result of Iglehart's negligence and the respondeat superior liability of the Board. The trial judge dismissed the Board from the action but directed it remain a party for the purposes of potential indemnification of Iglehart required under Md. Code Ann. Cts. & Jud. Proc. 5-518(h). The judge then ordered that judgment be entered against Iglehart and the Board. The intermediate appellate court affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) section 5-519 contains an indemnification provision that allows an injured party to bring a tort suit against the county board of education employee who caused the injury, and accordingly, the injured party must join the employer board as a defendant in the action; and (2) this statutory scheme does not violate the exclusivity rule stating that an injured employee's sole remedy against her employer is through the Workers' Compensation Act.

Respondents, a county, city, village, and other government officials, established speed cameras that recorded, among others, Petitioners traveling in their vehicles over the posted speed limit. Respondents issued citations to Petitioners. Petitioners subsequently filed a complaint in the circuit court, asserting claims sounding in tort and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. Petitioners asserted that Respondents' contracts with their common speed monitoring contract, ACS State and Local Solutions, violated Md. Code Ann. Transp. 21-809(j), which prohibited the county from remunerating, on a per-citation basis, a contractor who operates a speed monitoring system on the county's behalf. The circuit court granted Respondents' motions for summary judgment on all counts. The intermediate appellate court affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed but on different grounds, holding (1) section 21-809 does not provide an express or implied private cause of action in tort; and (2) Petitioners lacked the necessary taxpayer standing to pursue their injunctive and declaratory relief claims.

Respondent recorded a deed he had altered. At a bench trial, Respondent was convicted of counterfeiting pursuant to Md. Code Ann. Crim. Law 8-601. The court of special appeals reversed based on its conclusion that the evidence was insufficient to show an intent to defraud another. The Court of Appeals reversed and reinstated Respondent's conviction, holding (1) the trial's finding that Respondent had committed a fraud on the system of recordation satisfied the specific intent element of section 8-601 that a defendant have acted with the "intent to defraud another" because the fact that Respondent acted with the intent to defraud the system of deed recordation inherently reflected the intent to defraud anyone who would later seek to rely on the accuracy of the deed; and (2) Respondent did not act in good faith.

Following his arrest at age sixteen, Petitioner was convicted of assault with intent to murder and other crimes even though the indictment returned by the Grand Jury did not charge assault with intent to murder. Petitioner did not raise this issue at trial, at sentencing, or on direct appeal. Not until sixteen years after his conviction did Petitioner file a motion to correct an illegal sentence, claiming that the trial court lacked the power to convict and sentence him for assault with intent to murder because that charge was not contained in the indictment. The circuit court denied the petition, and the court of special appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals reversed the court of special appeals and vacated Petitioner's conviction and sentence for assault with intent to murder, holding (1) Petitioner's sentence for assault with intent to murder was illegal because that crime was not contained in the indictment returned by the Grand Jury; and (2) Petitioner's motion to correct and illegal sentence was timely because Maryland Rule 4-345(a) allows the trial court to correct an illegal sentence at any time.

This matter stemmed from an order of the circuit court granting Petitioner postconviction relief by vacating his conviction for first degree premeditated murder and leaving in place Petitioner's related convictions for felony murder and first degree rape. The court of special appeals reversed that order and reinstated Petitioner's conviction for first degree premeditated murder. The Court of Appeals granted Petitioner's writ for certiorari and the State's conditional cross-petition, holding (1) the court of appeals properly exercised jurisdiction when it decided the State's appeal; (2) Petitioner was not entitled to postconviction relief; and (3) the term-of-years Petitioner received for first degree premeditated murder, but not the sentence for first degree rape, was illegal and must be corrected on remand. Remanded.

The Board of County Commissioners of Frederick County (BOCC) appointed a nine-member charter board in 2011. The Maryland Constitution provides that the BOCC shall hold a special election for consideration of additional nominated charter board members under certain circumstances. Petitioners, individuals who sought membership on the charter board, circulated a petition in support of nominating candidates for consideration at a special election. The Frederick County Board of Elections (the Board) determined that Petitioners did not satisfy the statutory and constitutional requirements necessary for the BOCC to call a special election. The circuit court judge affirmed the determination made by the Board that the petition contained an insufficient number of valid signatures to require the BOCC to hold a special election. The Court of Appeals granted certiorari and held (1) the Board applied the correct standard for reviewing and validating petition signatures under Md. Code An. Elec. Law 6-203(a), as interpreted by the Court in recent opinions; (2) the doctrine of collateral estoppel was not applicable to the circumstances of this case; and (3) the mandatory petition signature requirements in 6-203(a) and COMAR 33.06.03.06B(1) were not unconstitutional.