Petitions for Writ of Certiorari - March, 2020


September Term, 2019


Granted March 2, 2020

Joseph Patrick Soule v. State of Maryland- Case No. 72, September Term, 2019

Issues – Criminal – 1) Should this Court revisit its cases holding it inappropriate to question venirepersons regarding the presumption of innocence, given the widespread use of such questions throughout the State? 2) Should this Court intervene where CSA upheld the trial court’s misapplication of the relevance standard in the context of third-party perpetrator evidence, which deprived Petitioner of the right to put forward a defense?


Granted March 11, 2020

Dayle K. Byrd v. State of Maryland - Case No. 4, September Term, 2020

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Did CSA err in holding that Petitioner’s guilty pleas were valid even though the State did not disclose material impeachment evidence about key police witnesses (including evidence of lying in federal court and falsifying a warrant)? 2) Did the non-disclosure of the evidence violate the State’s constitutional discovery obligation under Brady v. Maryland, 343 U.S. 83 (1963), and its progeny? 3) Did the non-disclosure of the evidence constitute a misrepresentation by the State rendering the pleas invalid under Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (1972), and its progeny?

Lawrence Ervin Montague v. State of Maryland - Case No. 75, September Term, 2019

Issue – Criminal Law – Is artistic expression, in the form of rap lyrics, that does not have a nexus to the alleged crime relevant as substantive evidence of guilt?

Nationwide Property & Casualty Insurance Company, et al. v. Selective Way Insurance Company - Case No. 1, September Term, 2020

Issue – Civil Procedure – Did CSA err in ruling that prejudgment interest is not recoverable as a matter of right on amounts paid for defense costs where a liability insurer breaches its duty to defend?

State of Maryland v. Kennard Carter - Case No. 74, September Term, 2019

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Does the Maryland Transit Administration’s (“MTA”) practice of fare inspection on the Light Rail comply with the Fourth Amendment? 2) If fare inspection does not comply with the Fourth Amendment, did the discovery of an open warrant for Respondent’s arrest nevertheless attenuate the violation under Utah v. Strieff, 136 S.Ct. 2056 (2016), where any unconstitutionality of the MTA’s fare inspection practice was not previously established?

State of Maryland v. Latoya Bonte Elzey - Case No. 3, September Term, 2020

Issue – Criminal Law – Was CSA wrong in holding that a jury may not be instructed to find that the victim abused the defendant and the defendant suffers from Battered Spouse Syndrome before considering expert testimony on the syndrome?

Devon Jordan Taylor v. State of Maryland - Case No. 2, September Term, 2020

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Where the only disputed issue at trial was identity, and the only evidence of identity was the victim’s identification of Petitioner, did CSA misapply the harmless error test in holding that an erroneously-given “anti-CSI effect” jury instruction was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the testimony of the victim is legally sufficient to sustain the convictions? 2) If preserved, should review of the trial court’s scientific evidence instruction be based on law existing at the time of the trial in 2008 and not based on this Court’s decisions in Atkins v. State, 421 Md. 434 (2011), and Stabb v. State, 423 Md. 454 (2011)? If so, did the trial court act within its discretion when it gave the scientific evidence instruction when the instruction was proper under then existing law, i.e., Evans v. State, 174 Md.App. 549 (2007)? 3) When Petitioner took exception to the scientific evidence instruction but did not state any particular grounds for the objection, did Petitioner fail to preserve for appellate review the question of the claimed error of the trial court’s instruction?

Tyson Farms, Inc., et al. v. Uninsured Employers' Fund - Case No. 5, September Term, 2020

Issues – Labor & Employment – 1) Did CSA err in reversing the trial court’s determination that the jury should resolve conflicting facts and inferences regarding whether Mr. Garcia was Petitioner’s employee? 2) Did CSA err in concluding that no reasonable jury could find that Mr. Garcia was not Petitioner’s employee, even though Petitioner’s contract was with the owner of the farm, and Petitioner did not hire (or fire) Mr. Garcia; pay him; set his hours or wages; or have a contract with him?

Eric Wise v. State of Maryland - Case No. 73, September Term, 2019

Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Did CSA err in affirming the admission of a statement by a witness with memory loss as a prior inconsistent statement, in conflict with Corbett v. State, 130 Md.App. 408, cert. denied, 359 Md. 31 (2000)? 2) Did CSA err in expanding the circumstances under which hearsay is admissible under Rule 5-802.1(a) to include statements containing a “material” inconsistency with the witness’s testimony?


Denied March 11, 2020

Suleymanov v. Azizova - Pet. Docket No. 438


Denied March 27, 2020

Bigham, Dale v. State - Pet. Docket No. 331
Bly v. Rochvarg - Pet. Docket No. 401
Campbell, Sebastian Albert v. State - Pet. Docket No. 454
Carter, Jason Scott, II v. State - Pet. Docket No. 459
Crescendo Bioscience v. Meso Scale Diagnostics - Pet. Docket No. 419
Diggs, Kenneth Frizzel, Jr. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 455
Donnelly v. State, et al. - Pet. Docket No. 425
Estate of Morris v. Anne Arundel Cnty. - Pet. Docket No. 464
Fuentes, Jorge A. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 444
Geppi v. Pineau - Pet. Docket No. 449
Greene v. Director, Off. of Budget & Fin., Balt. Cnty. - Pet. Docket No. 409
Hall, James Ellis, II v. State - Pet. Docket No. 489
Handy, Mark G. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 471
Herbert, Benjamin v. State - Pet. Docket No. 466
Herold v. Morrone - Pet. Docket No. 378
Hill v. Amer. Design & Build - Pet. Docket No. 374
In re: Adoption/G'ship of M.K., I.K. and N.K. - Pet. Docket No. 446
King v. 200 West Cherry Street - Pet. Docket No. 445
Lockett v. Kinder Clarks LLC - Pet. Docket No. 325
Long, Dontai v. State - Pet. Docket No. 440
Macklin, Antonio v. State - Pet. Docket No. 470
Maddox, Brian v. State - Pet. Docket No. 457
Morrill v. Md. Bd. of Physicians - Pet. Docket No. 458
Nusbaum v. Nusbaum - Pet. Docket No. 442
Onwuka v. Smith - Pet. Docket No. 448
Robinson v. CX Reinsurance Co. - Pet. Docket No. 375
Ross, Carl Javan v. State - Pet. Docket No. 452
Sewell v. Howard - Pet. Docket No. 453
Shirani, Ardeshir Shawn v. State - Pet. Docket No. 432
Smallwood, Robert P. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 430
Sturgis, Carrington v. State - Pet. Docket No. 434
Tyler v. Md. State Retirement & Pension Sys. - Pet. Docket No. 465
Warch v. Amer. Water Damage of Baltimore - Pet. Docket No. 463
Washburn v. McCarthy - Pet. Docket No. 461
Wilburn, Stacey E. v. State - Pet. Docket No. 467
Williams, Artez v. State - Pet. Docket No. 416



Granted March 30, 2020

Lolita D. Fowlkes v. Shabbir Ahmed Choudhry- Case No. 6, September Term, 2020

Issue – Torts – Did CSA err in its formulation and application of Maryland law regarding what a wrongful death plaintiff must prove in order to recover damages for the loss of household services that would have been provided by Petitioner’s deceased adult child?