Judge, Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
In re: B.Cd. & B.Cb.
Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2025-08-28
The case involved a mother who left her four-day-old twins at a hospital under Maryland's Safe Haven Act, directing that they be placed out of her care and declining to provide her name. The local department took custody and petitioned the juvenile court to find the twins children in need of assistance (CINA) based on neglect. The mother argued that her actions did not constitute neglect and that the Act's immunity from civil liability prevented such a finding. The juvenile court rejected these arguments, found the twins to be CINA after a disposition hearing, and the Appellate Court affirmed. The court reasoned that neglect occurred when the mother failed to make herself available to care for the twins at discharge, and that the Safe Haven Act's immunity provision did not preclude a CINA neglect determination because doing so would eliminate the legal mechanism for providing required care and services to the children.
family law
Cutchember v. State
Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2025-06-02
In this case, Lance Cutchember was stopped by police in January 2023; based solely on the odor of cannabis, officers searched his vehicle and found MDMA and related paraphernalia, leading to charges and a conditional guilty plea after the trial court denied his motion to suppress. The new statute CP § 1-211, effective July 1, 2023, bars vehicle searches based only on cannabis odor and excludes resulting evidence, but the search here predated that date while the suppression hearing occurred afterward. The Appellate Court affirmed the denial of suppression, holding that the statute applies only prospectively and that the operative date for its applicability is the date of the search rather than the later hearing. The court reasoned that the statute creates a new substantive right against such searches along with an exclusionary remedy expressly tied to violations of that right, so no violation could occur before the right existed, consistent with its prior decision in Kelly v. State.
criminal lawprocedure
Lewis v. State
Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2024-06-27
The case involved Cameron Darnell Lewis, who was convicted after trial of drug possession with intent to distribute and related offenses stemming from a traffic stop. On appeal, Lewis challenged the jury verdict's validity due to the use of 'yes' rather than 'guilty' or 'not guilty' on the verdict sheet, the trial court's refusal to ask a proposed voir dire question about medical conditions, the delivery of an accomplice liability jury instruction, and the qualification of a police officer as an expert on drug slang and street value. The Appellate Court of Maryland affirmed the convictions, determining that the verdict was properly announced, polled, and hearkened; the voir dire issues were either unpreserved, covered by a catch-all question, or harmless; evidence supported the accomplice instruction as an alternate theory; and the officer's training and experience qualified him as an expert.
criminal lawprocedure
State v. Fabien
Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2023-09-05
The case involved Kory J. Fabien, who was charged with multiple counts including manslaughter by vehicle under CR § 2-209 after causing a head-on collision while driving under the influence of alcohol, resulting in the stillbirth of a viable fetus carried by a passenger in the other vehicle. The trial court dismissed the charges related to the death of the fetus, and the Appellate Court of Maryland affirmed that dismissal. The court held that CR § 2-103, which governs manslaughter of a viable fetus, applies to prosecutions under CR § 2-209 but requires the state to prove that the defendant knew or had reason to know the victim was pregnant, an element the state could not establish based on the undisputed facts. The court also rejected the defendant's challenge to the timeliness of the state's appeal, ruling that no thirty-day limit applied to entering a nolle prosequi when some but not all counts had been dismissed.
criminal lawprocedure
Hinton v. State
Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2023-03-29
In Hinton v. State, the defendant, while on probation from a prior armed robbery conviction, was arrested on firearm possession charges and entered a nolo contendere plea to an amended count in Prince George’s County Circuit Court. The Montgomery County Circuit Court then held a violation of probation hearing, admitting docket entries and a transcript from the plea proceeding, and found that Hinton had violated probation conditions by failing to obey all laws and obtain permission to possess a firearm, resulting in revocation and a six-year sentence. The Appellate Court of Maryland affirmed, holding that although the nolo contendere plea itself and the defendant’s statements during the plea process are inadmissible in a probation revocation hearing, other evidence such as the prosecutor’s proffer of facts constitutes admissible hearsay that can support a finding by a preponderance of the evidence. The court reasoned that probation revocation proceedings are not bound by the reasonable doubt standard or strict evidentiary rules, and the trial court did not rely on the improperly admitted plea, making any error harmless. The decision also clarified that a nolo contendere plea does not immunize a probationer from violation findings based on properly admitted evidence from the proceeding.
criminal lawprocedure
Brown v. State
Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2021-09-02
The case involved Dru Darren Brown, who was convicted of one count of sexual abuse of a minor and thirty-one counts of second-degree sexual offense, second-degree rape, and third-degree sexual offense for repeatedly assaulting his girlfriend's teenage daughter in their Maryland home. Brown appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to prove the element of force or threat of force for the assaults after the first one and that his incriminating statements to Tennessee detectives should have been suppressed as involuntary under Maryland common law because they were induced by improper promises. The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the evidence supported a finding of threat of force for all assaults because the perpetrator's repeated modus operandi, combined with his role as a father figure, physical size, and the isolated setting, was reasonably calculated to create a genuine and reasonable fear of imminent bodily harm in the victim's mind. The court further held that the detectives' statements offering to "help" and indicating Brown would not be arrested by them did not constitute improper promises of special consideration or no prosecution, so the statements were voluntary and properly admitted.
criminal lawprocedure