John P. Moore

This case involved an appeal by Richard and Beverly Wanex challenging a garnishment proceeding in which Provident State Bank attached funds in a checking account to satisfy a judgment against them on defaulted business loans. The account was opened under a trade name for Richard Wanex's sole proprietorship selling and repairing tractor trailers, with his daughter Renee authorized to sign checks and make limited withdrawals despite receiving only a small salary. The Circuit Court for Dorchester County refused to quash the writ of attachment and entered a judgment of condemnation, which the appellate court affirmed. The court reasoned that the account belonged solely to Richard Wanex as the business owner, with no vested ownership interest held by Renee based on her limited use of the funds and lack of personal deposits, and that the lower court's findings were not clearly erroneous under the applicable rules of procedure. It also addressed but rejected arguments regarding the need for prior service of process on the judgment debtors before garnishment.

procedurepropertybusiness & regulatory

The case concerned a motion to quash a grand jury subpoena duces tecum served on Maryland National Bank for an individual's 1981 bank records as part of a Medicaid Fraud Control Unit investigation. The trial court denied the motion, and the appellate court affirmed. The court held that the appellant lacked standing to challenge the subpoena because, under United States v. Miller, a depositor has no legitimate expectation of privacy in bank records voluntarily conveyed to the bank. The court noted that Maryland precedent requiring banks to treat account information as confidential absent legal compulsion did not alter this result when a valid grand jury subpoena was involved.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved an appeal by Gregory Bernard Roberts after his 1981 convictions in Kent County Circuit Court for first-degree rape, carrying a dangerous weapon, daytime housebreaking, and attempted theft. Roberts raised three issues: whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying a continuance to allow additional testing, erred in admitting evidence from a dog scent lineup, and erred in refusing to compel production of certain laboratory reports. The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, concluding that the denial of a continuance did not meet the established criteria for an abuse of discretion, that the dog lineup evidence was reliable and properly admitted after a hearing, and that the discovery provided to the defense was adequate with no further compulsion required.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Terry W. Miller's appeal from his convictions for first-degree rape, robbery with a deadly weapon, kidnapping, and attempted first-degree sexual offense based on an incident in October 1980. Miller raised three issues on appeal: systematic exclusion of young adults from the jury panel violating his right to an impartial jury, failure to bring him to trial within 180 days as required by Maryland Rule 746, and admission of testimony from a witness whose name was not disclosed in advance under Rule 741. The court affirmed the judgments, determining that the trial began on the 180th day after defense counsel's appearance when properly computed under Rule 8, that the defense had sufficient opportunity to address the witness after a recess, and that the testimony was cumulative.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether a prior civil judgment against Irving and Ray Klein and their plumbing companies for unfair trade practices under the Maryland Consumer Protection Act barred a subsequent criminal prosecution of Ray Klein for bribing plumbing inspectors. The Circuit Court denied the motion to dismiss the indictments, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The court held that bribery is not an unfair trade practice under the Act because the statute's detailed definitions of such practices do not mention or imply bribery or its elements. It further concluded that double jeopardy and res judicata did not apply, as the civil action did not decide any issues related to bribery and the two proceedings involved different offenses and facts.

criminal lawprocedurebusiness & regulatory

The case concerned Medical Mutual Liability Insurance Society's attempt to disclaim coverage for its insured, Dr. Gerald Miller, in a medical malpractice suit arising from lens implant surgery that left patient Mrs. Feulner blind in one eye; the insurer alleged breach of the policy's cooperation clause due to the doctor's backdating of informed consent forms and inconsistent statements. The Superior Court of Baltimore City ruled that the disclaimer was improper and ordered full coverage, and the Court of Appeals affirmed that judgment. The core reasoning was that Maryland law (Art. 48A, § 482) requires an insurer to prove actual prejudice from any lack of cooperation before disclaiming liability, which Medical Mutual failed to establish given its early knowledge of the facts and continued defense of the claim.

healthcaretorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

The case involved a challenge by Crown Central Petroleum Corporation to regulations promulgated by the Maryland Comptroller under Md. Code art. 56, § 157B, which addressed the operation of retail service stations by petroleum producers and refiners pursuant to the 1974 divestiture law. The Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County granted summary judgment declaring the regulations invalid and ruling that Crown's contractual relationships with its service station dealers were lawful under the Gasoline Products Marketing Act and related statutes. The Comptroller appealed both rulings to the Court of Special Appeals. The core reasoning centered on the legislative history of the 1973 and 1974 acts, the scope of the Comptroller's rulemaking authority to define temporary operations and exceptions to divestiture requirements, and whether the evidence showed any violation in Crown's dealer agreements.

business & regulatory

The case involved a wife's appeal from a circuit court decree granting her husband a divorce on grounds of voluntary separation, incorporating a 1977 separation and property settlement agreement, awarding her custody and support for their two children, and dividing marital assets. The wife challenged the agreement's validity, claiming undue influence, duress, fraud, lack of consideration, inequity, and conflict with public policy, as well as arguing the court erred in granting the divorce on voluntary separation rather than adultery or desertion. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that the wife intelligently participated in negotiating and signing the agreement without duress, that it was supported by consideration and valid, and that the evidence supported a divorce based on voluntary separation despite allegations of marital misconduct. The court noted that a waiver of misconduct in the agreement did not bar claims for prior adultery but held that the chancellor was not clearly erroneous in awarding the divorce on non-culpable grounds.

family lawproperty

The case involved a workers' compensation claim by Howard T. Maloney, who suffered a job-related injury when a beer keg fell on his left arm, forearm, and hand, leading to temporary disability benefits and a later award by the Workers' Compensation Commission. The Commission classified the permanent partial disability under the "Other Cases" provision of Md. Ann. Code art. 101, § 36(4), awarding compensation based on 30% industrial loss of use of the body as a whole. The employer appealed, and the circuit court granted summary judgment in its favor, ruling that the injury should instead be treated as a specific loss to the hand under § 36(3) with no evidence supporting body-wide impairment. The appellate court reversed, holding that summary judgment was improper because the record presented a genuine dispute of material fact as to the proper classification of the injury, and it affirmed the denial of a statutory penalty because that relief must first be sought before the Commission.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case involved the appeal of Emory Edward Reed's convictions on six counts arising from his participation in a September 4, 1980, incident in which he and others abducted a man at gunpoint, assaulted individuals at a trailer while searching for jewelry, and fired shots at pursuers. Reed challenged the trial court's decisions to proceed in his absence after he failed to return following a recess, to consolidate his case with his codefendant's, to allow joint representation by the same attorney, and argued that the evidence was insufficient and that his speedy trial rights were violated. The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the conflict-of-interest claim was better addressed through post-conviction relief proceedings and that Reed's other contentions lacked sufficient merit to warrant reversal.

criminal lawprocedure

This case is a divorce appeal concerning the division of marital property after a prior remand from Ward I. The wife challenged the circuit court's grant of a $50,000 monetary award to the husband and $10,000 to the wife as an adjustment of equities in the marital home and other assets, arguing it exceeded the value of marital property and improperly deviated from equal division. The Court of Special Appeals vacated the judgment and remanded, finding the awards unsupported by the evidence or findings of fact. The core reasoning required strict adherence to the three-step statutory process under Md. Cts. & Jud. Proc. Code Ann. § 3-6A-05: first identifying marital property, then valuing it, and finally considering the nine enumerated factors before any discretionary monetary award to achieve an equitable adjustment.

family lawproperty

This case is an appeal from the revocation of probation and reimposition of a suspended two-year sentence for battery, where the appellant's probation condition required attendance at a mental health program. After the appellant was terminated from the initial program due to unsatisfactory progress and threatening behavior, the trial court revoked probation based on that termination. The appellate court remanded the case without affirmance or reversal for further proceedings, reasoning that a proposed alternative outpatient treatment plan by a new psychologist warranted consideration before revocation, as initial failure in therapy should not automatically result in incarceration without exploring suitable mental health options.

criminal lawprocedure

In Epps v. State, the appellant was convicted after a bench trial of three counts of first-degree murder and two counts of arson arising from fires set at two residences in Baltimore, resulting in three deaths; he received three concurrent life sentences and two concurrent 30-year terms. He argued that his waiver of a jury trial was invalid because it was conditioned on a promise, allegedly agreed to by the State and judge, that he would receive only one life sentence if convicted, and that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his motion to sever the arson counts. The court rejected both claims, holding that the record showed the waiver was knowing and voluntary with no enforceable sentencing agreement or judicial commitment, and that joinder of the counts was proper under the circumstances. It therefore affirmed the convictions and sentences.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Prince George's County's denial of the Carusillos' request to upgrade their commercially zoned property's water and sewer classification from area 5 to area 3, which would have allowed development within one to two years instead of seven to ten. The circuit court granted a writ of mandamus after finding the denial arbitrary and capricious, based on stipulations that the property met all published criteria such as approved zoning, system capacity, and master plan conformity, while a comparable nearby property received an upgrade. The appellate court affirmed, ruling that although Art. 43 § 387C grants the county council discretion in revising the Ten-Year Water and Sewer Plan, the council must apply its own uniform criteria consistently and cannot deny qualifying requests on an ad hoc basis.

propertyenvironmentbusiness & regulatory

In this case, three Maryland taxpayers sued former Vice President Spiro T. Agnew to recover cash payments allegedly made to him by engineering firms in exchange for state road contracts awarded during his time as Governor and Baltimore County Executive, seeking an accounting, constructive trust, and restitution. The Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County entered judgment against Agnew for $147,500 plus interest, which he appealed on multiple evidentiary and procedural grounds, including the admissibility of sworn statements from participants in the scheme, his nolo contendere plea to federal tax evasion, and the State's intervention. The Court of Appeals addressed these issues, focusing particularly on the admissibility of the sworn statements as the primary basis for the trial court's findings, while also considering waiver of attorney-client privilege and other claims. The taxpayers cross-appealed the dismissal of their standing after trial. The court ultimately resolved the evidentiary and procedural challenges in the course of reviewing the judgment.

criminal lawprocedure

In Murray v. Lane, appellant was injured when she fell through a defective wooden railing on the second-floor platform of appellees' restaurant and lounge while waiting for a tenant who had invited her there. A jury found the owners liable for failing to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition and awarded her $30,000, but the trial court granted judgment notwithstanding the verdict, ruling that appellant was a mere licensee to whom the owners owed only a duty to avoid willful or wanton misconduct. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that appellant was a business invitee because she was a social guest of the tenant whose presence was connected to the owners' business of renting rooms, and that any undisclosed limitations on the tenant's authority to invite guests could not reduce the duty owed to her. The court therefore directed entry of judgment on the jury's verdict in appellant's favor.

torts & liabilityproperty

In Lawrence v. State, the defendant was convicted by an all-white jury of first-degree murder and use of a handgun in a crime of violence after the prosecution used peremptory strikes to remove all three black potential jurors from the venire. The defendant argued that this practice violated his rights under the Federal and Maryland Constitutions. The court, relying on Swain v. Alabama and Taylor v. Louisiana, held that peremptory challenges may be exercised without stated reason and without violating equal protection or the right to an impartial jury drawn from a representative cross-section of the community, provided the jury pool itself is not systematically exclusionary. The court also rejected the defendant's evidentiary and sufficiency claims and affirmed the convictions.

criminal lawcivil rights

In Smith v. State, Marilyn D. Smith was convicted by a jury of four counts of perjury for statements made under oath during an equity trial stemming from consumer complaints about undelivered furniture and unissued refunds. The convictions arose from her testimony claiming she had sent checks to two customers on a specific date, which the State proved false through circumstantial evidence including unsatisfied district court judgments against her. On appeal, Smith raised issues regarding the constitutionality and application of removal rules, denial of her motion for judgment of acquittal, alleged duplicity in the indictment counts, and jury instructions on verdict unanimity. The court rejected all claims, holding that the evidence was sufficient, that any pretrial publicity was addressed by voir dire, that the counts were not duplicative, and that the instructions were proper, and therefore affirmed the judgments.

criminal lawprocedure

In Davis v. Muse, two Baltimore City police officers appealed a $10,000 jury verdict against them in a suit brought by Wilbert Muse for assault and battery and malicious prosecution stemming from his 1976 arrest following a disturbance at a private home. The officers argued they were performing their duties and entitled to qualified privilege, while the plaintiff claimed excessive force including mace and a nightstick. The Court of Appeals of Maryland reversed the judgment and remanded for a new trial, holding that the trial court committed reversible error by refusing to instruct the jury that malice must be proven before police officers can be held liable for assault and battery in the performance of discretionary duties. The court reasoned that officers acting with legal justification in arrests are protected absent a showing of malice, defined as an intentional wrongful act done with ill will or improper motive, and that the same malice standard applied in the malicious prosecution count should have been given for the assault and battery claim.

criminal lawtorts & liabilitycivil rights

In Smith v. State, the defendant appealed his convictions for armed robbery and use of a handgun in a felony, arguing denial of a speedy trial and violation of the Interstate Agreement on Detainers, while the State cross-appealed the trial court's refusal to impose enhanced sentencing under Maryland's recidivist statute based on two prior federal armed robbery convictions that had been set aside under the Federal Youth Corrections Act. The court affirmed the convictions, finding the speedy trial and detainer claims without merit. On the sentencing issue, it held that the prior convictions could not be used for enhancement because the FYCA provision automatically sets aside such convictions, leaving them with no further operative effect, consistent with the statute's rehabilitative purpose.

criminal lawprocedure