SCHEDULE OF ORAL ARGUMENTS
September Term, 2023
Thursday, September 7, 2023:
AG No. 2 Petition of Sherwood R. Wescott for Reinstatement to the Bar of Maryland
Attorney for Petitioner: Sherwood R. Wescott
Attorney for Respondent: Dolores O. Ridgell
No. 1 In the Matter of Smart Energy Holdings, LLC
Issues – Public Utilities – 1) Did the ACM err in finding that the Public Service Commission (“the Commission”) has jurisdiction to interpret and enforce Md. Code, Commercial Law §14-2201(f), the Maryland Telephone Solicitations Act (“MTSA”)? 2) Did the ACM err in finding that a telephone call made by a potential customer to SmartEnergy in response to a previously mailed postcard was a violation of the MTSA? 3) Did the ACM err in holding that the Commission’s findings were supported by substantial evidence and that the penalty imposed was not arbitrary and capricious?
Attorney for Petitioner: Douglas Gansler
Attorneys for Respondent: Miles H. Mitchell and William F. Fields
Friday, September 8, 2023:
Misc No. 62 (2022 T.) In the Matter of the Application of Samuel E. Howie For Admission to the Bar of Maryland
Arguing for Appplicant: Samuel E. Howie
No. 2 Francois Browne v. State of Maryland
Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Did the ACM err by deciding on its own initiative that Maryland courts should no longer adhere to the exclusionary approach to other-crimes evidence under Md. Rule 5-404(b), when that issue was not decided by the trial judge and was not raised, briefed, or argued by the parties on appeal? 2) If not, should this Court reject the ACM’s exclusionary approach to Md. Rule 5-404(b)? 3) Did ACM err by adopting the “doctrine of chances” and by applying that doctrine to this case? 4) In a trial for the abuse and murder of Petitioner’s girlfriend’s toddler, did the trial court err and abuse its discretion by allowing evidence relating to Petitioner’s previous Alford plea to child abuse resulting in the death of his own baby? 5) Does “due diligence” under Md. Rule 4-331(c) require defense attorneys to audit the contents of the State’s admitted exhibits before allowing the exhibits to go to the jury? 6) Where defense counsel relied on the prosecutor’s representations regarding the contents of the State’s exhibits, did the trial court err or abuse its discretion by denying Petitioner’s motion for a new trial, which was based on a discovery that videos pertaining to the case but not admitted into evidence had been present in the jury room during deliberations?
Attorney for Petitioner: Eva Shell
Attorney for Respondent: Jillian Chieppor
No. 3 In re: M.P.
Issues – Courts & Judicial Proceedings – 1) As an issue of first impression, does the newly enacted Juvenile Justice Reform Act (“JJRA”), Md. Code Ann. § 3-8A-03 of the Courts & Judicial Proceedings Article, which establishes a minimum age of jurisdiction for the juvenile court, apply to cases pending at the time of the statute’s enactment? 2) As an issue of first impression, is an order denying a motion to dismiss for lack of juvenile court jurisdiction immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine?
Attorney for Appellant: Michele D. Hall
Attorney for Appellee: Menelik Coates
After September 8, 2023, the Court will recess until October 2, 2023. On the day of argument, counsel must register in the Clerk’s Office no later than 9:30 a.m. unless otherwise notified.