ORVILLE COOPER v. STATE OF MARYLAND
Court of Appeals, Opinion by Greene, Filed August 26, 2013
http://www.mdcourts.gov/opinions/coa/2013/37a12.pdf
Confrontation clause- In a majority opinion this time, a forensic report was admissible without testimony by the person who drafted it because it was “non-testimonial,” described as lacking “the solemnity of an affidavit or deposition, for it is neither a sworn nor a certified declaration of fact.”

Other holdings:
– (Hearsay) Excited utterance requires a foundation for admissibility of “personal knowledge and spontaneity.”
– (Hearsay) A statement may be admitted as an “excited utterance” exception to the hearsay rule “if the declaration was made at such a time and under such circumstances that the exciting influence of the occurrence clearly produced a spontaneous and instinctive reaction on the part of the declarant who is still emotionally engulfed by the situation.”
– (Hearsay) Excited utterance. While time from event is a factor, still an excited utterance where one hour later victim of sexual assault was “tearful” and “emotional,” still wearing the same clothing, and distraught when speaking to a detective after having been brought to a hospital to be examined physically and questioned concerning the attack.

KENNETH MARTIN STACHOWSKI, JR. v. STATE OF MARYLAND
Court of Special Appeals, Kehoe, Filed August 27, 2013
http://www.mdcourts.gov/opinions/cosa/2013/2051s06.pdf
Restitution- Illegal sentence where court ordered defendant to pay restitution stemming from a separate incident (even where all incidents were part of the same plea agreement). Despite declaring sentence illegal, proper remedy was to strike restitution and otherwise affirm sentence rather than vacate and remand.

HOWARD BAY DIGGS v. STATE OF MARYLAND
TRAIMNE MARTINEZ ALLEN v. STATE OF MARYLAND
Court of Speacial Appeals, Kehoe, Filed August 27, 2013
http://www.mdcourts.gov/opinions/cosa/2013/0929s10.pdf
DNA- Where no confirmatory testing has been completed, evidence of a CODIS match is inadmissible at trial, regardless of whether it be the trial of the individual associated with the DNA record or anyone else.

Other notes from Diggs:
– Expert testimony that DNA sample matched suspect was admissible even without population genetic statistical data where expert testified that to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty she could identify the DNA as coming from defendant.
– Hearsay contained within a police officer’s report is inadmissible except for purposes of impeachment
– Not error to deny mistrial for prosecutor’s comment on defendant’s demeanor (laughing and smiling) in closing argument when those actions aided in identifying defendant (defendant also seen laughing in video footage) AND when record confirms that defendant actually laughed and smiled in the courtroom.
– Where the shooter was unknown but evidence existed that both co-defendants planned and participated in the robbery that resulted in the shooting, sufficient to convict for attempted murder