DOUGLAS FORD BEY II v. STATE OF MARYLAND
Court of Special Appeals, Harrell, June 29, 2016,
Course of Conduct with Child – CR 3-315 – “Course of conduct” can not be sub-divided where continuous; unit of prosecution is one course of conduct per victim

(Concur – Friedman – Statute is ambiguous and would rely on Rule of Lenity in merging sentence)
Affirmed by CoA

Contrast “course of conduct” here (no maximum limit) with the ex-parte “course of conduct” (can be sub-divided)

Discharge of Counsel:
Defense brought to court’s attention disagreement w/regard to counsel’s desire not to cross-examine young victim. CoSA treated for argument sake as request to discharge counsel, found no abuse of discretion.

Discharge of Counsel – Request to discharge counsel during trial is not regulated by Rule 4-215 (pre-trial rules)

Discharge of Counsel – Rule 4-215(e) no longer applies once voir dire begins. The right to substitute counsel and the right to self-representation are curtailed once trial begins – Citing Hardy

Discharge of Counsel – During Trial – Factors to be considered:
(1) the merit of the reason for discharge;
(2) the quality of counsel’s representation prior to the request;
(3) the disruptive effect, if any, that discharge would have on the proceedings;
(4) the timing of the request;
(5) the complexity and stage of the proceedings; and
(6) any prior requests by the defendant to discharge counsel.

Chain of Custody – Failure to provide identity of every person that handled sealed DNA container did not defeat chain of custody as nature of seal and surrounding testimony demonstrated reasonable probability that no tampering occurred