Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Appellant Alonzo King was arrested in 2009 on first- and second-degree assault charges. Pursuant to the Maryland DNA Collection Act, King's DNA was collected, analyzed, and entered into Maryland's DNA database. King was convicted on the second-degree assault charge but, pending his trial on that charge, his DNA profile generated a match to a DNA sample collected from a sexual assault forensic examination conducted on the victim of an unsolved 2003 rape. This hit provided the sole probable cause for a subsequent grant jury indictment of King for the rape. A later-obtained search warrant ordered collection from King of an additional reference DNA sample, which also matched the DNA profile from the 2003 rape. King was subsequently convicted of first-degree rape and sentenced to life in prison. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the portions of the DNA Act authorizing collection of a DNA sample from a mere arrestee were unconstitutional as applied to King, as the State had no probable cause or individualized suspicion supporting obtention of the DNA sample collection for King's first- and second-degree assault charges.

After a jury trial, Reginald Stringfellow was convicted of possessing a regulated firearm after having been convicted of a disqualifying crime and wearing, carrying, or transporting a handgun. Stringfellow appealed, arguing that his objection to a voir dire question proposed by the prosecutor and given by the trial judge during jury selection prejudiced the jurors against him by imputing his guilt, devaluing fingerprint evidence, and lowering the State's burden of proof. At issue before the Court of Appeals was whether Stringfellow's unsuccessful objection to the question went to the composition of the jury, which would have resulted in his objection being waived for the purposes of appellate review because he accepted the jury chosen pursuant to the questioning, or whether the nature of his objection was incidental to the composition of the jury, which, notwithstanding Stringfellow's acceptance of the jury, would have preserved his objection for appellate consideration. The Court held that Stringfellow's objection went to the composition of the jury, and thus, Stringfellow waived any future opportunity to complain on appeal about the objected-to question and its potential effect. In addition, even assuming the objection was not waived, the asking of the question was harmless error.

Peter Toland, a Maryland resident, filed a complaint to establish custody of his daughter, Erika, who lived with her maternal grandmother, Akiko Futagi, in Japan. The mother of Erika, having previously been awarded custody by a Japanese court, died in 2007. A Japanese decree issued thereafter, and without notice to Toland, appointed Futagi as the guardian of Erika. Toland subsequently amended his complaint and alleged that Maryland was the appropriate forum to determine custody under the Maryland Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act. The circuit court dismissed Toland's complaint, concluding (1) the Japanese guardianship decree did not constitute a violation of Toland's due process rights; and (2) Japan was the home state of Erika under the Act because Erika had lived exclusively in Japan for her entire life. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court's dismissal of Toland's complaint did not violate his due process rights, as they were not implicated by the Japanese decree; and (2) the circuit court properly applied the Act to conclude that it should not exercise jurisdiction over Toland's complaint to establish custody, as the child had no connection with Maryland, and Japan had not declined custody jurisdiction.

Petitioner Ricky Washington was convicted by a jury of first degree rape and related offenses. Petitioner appealed, claiming, inter alia, that the trial court had abused its discretion in declining to ask during voir dire of the jury panel whether any prospective juror would be more likely to believe a witness solely by virtue of the witness having served in the military or being employed by the military. The court of special appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) only certain questions are mandatory during voir dire of a jury panel if they are directly related to the facts and circumstances of the case; (2) based on the circumstances of this case, Petitioner's proposed question was not mandatory, and thus, it was within the discretion of the trial court whether to pose the question to the jury trial; and (3) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Petitioner's request to ask the question.

Petitioner Curtis Alston was convicted of first degree murder and related offenses and sentenced to life in prison without parole for first degree murder and lesser terms for the other offenses. Later, the postconviction trial court vacated Alston's convictions and sentences and granted him a new trial. Forty-four days after the entry of the final judgment in the postconviction case, the State filed a motion to reconsider. The court did reconsider its earlier judgment and denied Alston's petition for postconviction relief, thereby re-imposing Alston's original convictions and sentences. Alston then commenced the present case by filing a motion to correct illegal sentences, claiming he was entitled to relief under Md. R. 4-345(a), which provides that a court may correct an illegal sentence at any time. The circuit court denied the motion, and the court of special appeals affirmed. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding (1) the postconviction trial court's re-imposition of Alston's original sentences, after having vacated those sentences and having ordered a new trial, was unlawful; and (2) the court's illegal action was cognizable under Rule 4-345(a). Remanded to correct the imposition of the illegal convictions and sentences.

After being pulled over for a routine traffic stop, Petitioner Tyrone Smith was convicted of driving without a license. Petitioner was convicted under Md. Code Ann, Transp. 16-101(a) (the statute), which contains three parts. Petitioner appealed, claiming that the State must prove all three parts of the statute as elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the State need only prove the first part of the statute to convicted a defendant of driving without a license, and that the second and third parts are affirmative defenses that must be raised by a defendant.

Petitioner Elliott McClain was convicted by a jury of first degree murder and related offenses. At trial, the State offered into evidence an audiotape of a prior statement by a State's witness without explicitly offering at that time a theory for its admission. The trial court admitted that audiotape, reasoning that it was admissible as either a prior consistent statement or a prior inconsistent statement. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err (1) in admitting the audiotape statement as a prior inconsistent statement pursuant to Md. R. Evid. 5.802.1(a); and (2) in sending to the jury room during deliberations, absent a specific request from the jury, the audiotape statement of the witness and other prior audiotape statements that were admitted into evidence.

Md. R. Evid. 5-804(b)(1) allows for the admission of "former testimony" hearsay when the party against whom the declarant's statement is offered had an opportunity to develop the testimony at a prior action or proceeding. Petitioner Leon Dulyx was found guilty by a jury of aiding and abetting a robbery and aiding and abetting theft under $500. Petitioner appealed, contending that the circuit court erred under Rule 5-804(b)(1) and the Confrontation Clause in allowing the State to introduce at trial testimony of a witness taken during a pre-trial hearing to suppress the witness's extrajudicial identification of Petitioner. The court of special appeals affirmed the judgments. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the court of special appeals erred when it held that Petitioner was given a "full and fair opportunity" to cross-examine the witness despite substantial limitations placed on Petitioner's ability to question him. Consequently, the witness's testimony at that hearing was not admissible at Petitioner's trial under the "former testimony" hearsay exception. Remanded.

Petitioner Charles Phillips was arrested and subjected to a custodial interrogation. After about forty-five minutes of conversation, Petitioner expressed a desire to consult with an attorney. Following that expression, a police detective continued to engage Petitioner in conversation, during which Petitioner indicated a desire to continue talking to the detective and ultimately made a number of incriminating statements. Petitioner was subsequently convicted of first degree murder and armed robbery. The court of special appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court granted Petitioner's petition for certiorari to determine whether his inculpatory statements were elicited in violation of Edwards v. Arizona. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the conversation that ensued after Petitioner's invocation of his right to an attorney constituted a prohibited interrogation, and thus, Petitioner's inculpatory statements should have been suppressed.

In his sixth time before the court of appeals, Anthony Grandison, a prisoner on death row for his role in a pair of 1983 murders, presented various requests for relief. Grandison's previous appeals resulted in one order denying an appeal and four published opinions. Grandison subsequently filed numerous motions, the majority of which the circuit court dismissed. The court did grant Grandison's motion to fire two appointed attorneys, and Grandison proceeded pro se for part of the collateral proceedings. Grandison then argued that he had a right to counsel for those proceedings and requested that he be appointed counsel so that he could go back and litigate the denied collateral claims with the benefit of counsel. Grandison also appealed the denial of his various motions. The Supreme Court (1) held Grandison did not have a right to counsel during the collateral proceedings, and the circuit court did not err or abuse its discretion in allowing Grandison to discharge counsel and continue pro se; and (2) affirmed the denial and dismissal of Grandison's motions by the circuit court.