Justia Maryland Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the appellate court deciding the merits of Defendant's appeal and affirming Defendant's conviction for voluntary manslaughter and related offenses, holding that the constitutional right to a fair trial extends to appellate proceedings, that the appellate court erred in deciding the merits of Defendant's appeal, and that a new trial was required.During Defendant's appeal, the appellate court compared Defendant, an African American man, to the mythical monster Grendel in Beowulf. On appeal to the Court of Appeals Defendant argued that this reference evoked racist tropes of African Americans and that other passages in the appellate court's dicta deprived him of his constitutional right to a fair and impartial appellate process. The Court of Appeals remanded the case for a new trial, holding (1) the right to fair and impartial judges extends to appellate proceedings; and (2) the appellate court erred in concluded that the exclusion of certain evidence was harmless because its exclusion was harmful, reversible error. View "Belton v. State" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the circuit court denying Petitioner's petition for post-conviction DNA testing pursuant to Md. Code Ann. Crim. Proc. 8-201(b)(1), holding that Petitioner was not entitled to relief on his allegations of error.Petitioner was convicted of first-degree murder and other offenses and sentenced to life imprisonment plus a term of 150 years' imprisonment. In his post-conviction petition, Petitioner asserted that there was a reasonable probability that DNA testing of certain evidence had the scientific potential to produce exculpatory or mitigating evidence. The circuit court denied the petition. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the circuit court properly denied the petition because the record and testimony reflected that any results of testing the subject evidence would not produce exculpatory or mitigating evidence. View "Satterfield v. State" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals remanded this case to the circuit court for entry of a declaratory judgment that Jacob Bennett was qualified to serve as a member of the Harford County Council while simultaneously being employed as a teacher by the Harford County Board of Education, holding that Bennett was entitled to relief.Harford County brought suit seeking a declaratory judgment that Bennett was not qualified to serve on the Harford County Council. Bennett filed a counterclaim seeking injunctive and declaratory relief and a writ of mandamus. The circuit court ruled that Bennett was precluded from serving on the Harford County Council. The Court of Appeals granted relief and ordered that Bennett was not precluded from serving as a member of the Harford County Council. View "Bennett v. Harford County" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the appellate court dismissing Appellant's appeal of the circuit court's ruling affirming the judgment of the Maryland Commission on Civil Rights finding no probable cause to believe that Krav Maga MD, LLC (KMMD) engaged in disability discrimination, holding that the appellate court correctly dismissed Appellant's appeal.Appellant alleged that KMMD, her gym, engaged in disability discrimination by deleting a comment that Appellant had posted on the gym's Facebook account relating to her disability and then later by terminating her membership. The Commission ultimately found no probable cause the find that KMMD had discriminated against Appellant based on her disability. The circuit court affirmed the Commission's finding of no probable cause. On appeal, the appellate court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to consider Appellant's appeal. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the appellate court correctly dismissed Appellant's appeal. View "Rowe v. Md. Comm'n on Civil Rights" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the circuit court holding that Md. Code Ann., Elec. Law 8-103(b)(1) is constitutional, determining that the State Board of Elections had proven the existence of emergency circumstances, and permitting the State Board to begin canvassing absentee ballots on Oct. 1, 2022, holding that there was no error.In connection with the November 8, 2022 general election the State Board petitioned the circuit court to authorize local boards of election to begin canvassing absentee ballots on October, 2022, seeking the authority under section 8-103(b)(1). The State Board alleged that emergency circumstances existed that interfered with the electoral process because the State's combined experience with absentee ballots and elections led to the conclusion that the volume of absentee ballots it was likely to receive during the 2022 general election could not be processed in a timely manner if local board could not start canvassing the ballots until after the election. Daniel Cox intervened and opposed the petition, arguing that section 8-103(b)(1) violates separation of powers principles and that the forecasted problems did not constitute "emergency circumstances." The circuit could granted judgment for the State Board. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the Cox was not entitled to relief on his assignments of error. View "In re Petition for Emergency Remedy of Bd. of Elections" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals affirmed Defendant's conviction of sexual abuse of a minor under Md. Code Ann., Crim. Law (CR) 3-602, holding that, under the applicable standard of review, the evidence was sufficient for a rational juror to find that, with his in-classroom conduct, Defendant, a thirty-year-old substitute teacher, engaged in an act that involved sexual exploitation of a minor.Defendant indulged in a sexually exploitative relationship with A.G., a twelve-year-old student, during out-of-school hours. The appellate court reversed Defendant's conviction for sexual abuse of a minor on the grounds that he had not "said or implied anything sexual" in his conversation with A.G. in school. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding (1) the occurrence of sexual exploitation outside of the perpetrator's time of responsibility for supervision of the minor may be used to establish child sexual abuse under CR 3-602, but there must be a showing that the perpetrator engaged in an act relating to, affecting or that was a part of the sexual exploitation while the perpetrator was responsible for the care, custody, or supervision of the minor; and (2) the evidence demonstrated that Defendant's in-school conduct fell within the meaning of the language of the statute. View "State v. Krikstan" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the appellate court affirming the circuit court's judgment reversing the determination of the Board of Public Works that a decision of the procurement officer for the Department of General Services (DGS) was arbitrary and capricious, holding that the procurement officer's decision was not arbitrary or capricious.The Maryland Department of General Services (DGS), on behalf of the Maryland Insurance Administration (MIA), issued a request for proposal (RFP) for office space. Montgomery Park was originally named the awardee, but through its procurement officer, DGS cancelled the RFP before the award was presented to the Board for approval. Thereafter, the procurement officer renewed MIA's existing lease between MIA and the leased premise. Montgomery Park filed two bid protests, which the procurement officer denied. The Board overturned the procurement officer's decisions determining that they violated Maryland procurement law. The circuit court reversed, and the appellate court affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that (1) the procurement officer's decision to cancel the RFP was not arbitrary or capricious; and (2) Montgomery Park lacked standing to protest the renewal of the existing lease between MIA and St. Paul Plaza. View "Montgomery Park v. Md. Dep't of General Services" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the circuit court affirming the determination of the Planning Board that Amazon Services, LLC's's proposed use of property it owned in Prince George's County fell within the definition of "Warehouse" under section 27 of the Prince George's County Code and was, therefore, permitted by right at the property, holding that the district court did not err.Amazon sought approval to make certain modifications and improvements to its property, which the Planning Board approved, concluding that the proposed use of the property qualified as a "warehouse" use under the applicable zoning ordinance. The District Council for Prince George's County affirmed. On review, the District Council concluded that the Planning Board correctly determined that Amazon's proposed use of the property qualified as a "warehouse and distribution facility" use under the zoning ordinance. The circuit court affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that there was substantial evidence in the record to support the decision of the District Council affirming the Planning Board's approval of Amazon's design plan for the property. View "Crawford v. County Council of Prince George's County" on Justia Law

In this insurance dispute brought by Insured seeking declarations that the policies issued by Insurer covered the losses it had suffered from repairing and remediating its physical space to accommodate the health necessities brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic, holding that the allegations did not trigger the primary coverage provided by the relevant policies.Insured asserted that it suffered hundreds of millions of dollars for health and safety protocols and modifications to its stores due to the presence of COVID-19. After Insurer denied coverage Insured brought this lawsuit. Insurer moved to dismiss the complaint, after which Insured filed a motion to certify a question of law to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals answered that when a first-party, all-risk property insurance policy covers "all risks of physical loss or damage" to insured property from any cause unless excluded, coverage is not triggered when a toxic, noxious, or hazardous substance such as COVID-19 is physical present in the indoor air of that property, is also present on and can later be dislodged from physical items on the property, and causes a loss of the functional use of the property. View "Tapestry, Inc. v. Factory Mutual Insurance" on Justia Law

The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the circuit court granting the motion for summary judgment brought by Calvert County, Maryland and dismissing the claims brought by Petitioners, four Calvert County residents, against the Board of County Commissioners of Calvert, holding that there was no error.Petitioners brought an action against the County Commissioners and County seeking a declaratory judgment that the Calvert County Comprehensive Plan was illegally passed because one of the Commissioners had a conflict of interest in the legislation and did not recuse himself and requesting that the circuit court void the plan in light of the conflict. The circuit court granted the County's motion for summary judgment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court correctly entered summary judgment in favor of the County. View "Dzurec v. Bd. of County Commissioners Calvert County" on Justia Law