Criminal Law:
DEANGELO FERDALE SAVAGE v. STATE
Court of Special Appeals, Filed May 29, 2013
http://mdcourts.gov/opinions/cosa/2013/1741s11.pdf
Short version (Conspiracy): If Defendant charged with multiple conspiracies, State must prove and jury must be instructed that conviction requires finding of multiple, separate agreements to violate the law. Otherwise, can only sentence for one.
Notes on Conspiracy from the case:
– (Overarching conspiracy) If the State charges one conspiracy, must prove the existence of one overall conspiracy as opposed to separate and independent conspiracies.
– (Variance) When the State charges one conspiracy, but the evidence shows at least two, defendant may challenge conviction on the grounds of variance (“difference between the allegations in a charging instrument and the proof actually introduced at trial”).
– (Double Jeopardy) When a defendant contends that only one conspiracy exists, while the State insists there are at least two, he challenges on the ground of double jeopardy because he has been convicted of the same crime twice.
– (Changing Co-Conspirators) “[t]here may . . . be a continuing conspiracy with a changing dramatis personae, so long as there are never less than two conspirators. A gap during which there is only one actor breaks the continuity.” (Bazelon’s dissent in Greene v. US, 246 F.2d 677, 680 (1957)). When a new conspirator thereafter appears on the scene, there is a new and separate conspiracy.
– (Changing co-conspirators) The fact that a conspirator in a two-person conspiracy seeks a replacement for a departed would-be cohort is a strong indication of the failure of one conspiracy and the creation of another.
– (Withdrawal) In order to “withdraw” from a conspiracy, the conspirator must affirmatively “act ‘to defeat or disavow the purposes of the conspiracy.
– (Jury Instruction) Without an instruction that the jury could not find appellant “guilty of more than one count of conspiracy unless [it] was convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that he entered into two separate agreements to violate the law,” the State was not put to the test of proving separate conspiracies, and therefore it cannot be “allowed to obtain a sentencing advantage from having failed at trial to” do so.
JULIUS HENSON v. STATE
Court of Special Appeals, Filed May 30, 2013
http://mdcourts.gov/opinions/cosa/2013/1046s12.pdf
Short version (appellate argument): If the Court uses the words “confused” or “mistaken” more than four times to describe your argument, you’re probably not going to win.
Various holdings:
– (Conspiracy) A conviction for conspiracy may lie without conviction of the underlying offense
– (Accessory Liability) For misdemeanor crimes, aiders and abettors are held criminally liable to the same degree as principals.
– (Accessory Liability) Misdemeanor charges needed not distinguish principal from accessory liability
– An expert opinion as to an ultimate issue of fact is admissible; an expert’s opinion on a matter of law is inadmissible
– (Probation) A condition to the granting of probation which compels a defendant to give up a fundamental or constitutional right is not in and of itself unconstitutional or invalid. Such a condition cannot stand only if it is not related to the crime of which defendant has been convicted and if it has no reasonable relation to future criminality
Related Opinions:
CHRIS BUSH v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF MARYLAND
Court of Special Appeals, Filed May 29, 2013
http://mdcourts.gov/opinions/cosa/2013/0032s12.pdf
Short version: “Unless otherwise provided by rule or statute, to be considered timely, a Petition must actually be received by the circuit court clerk no later than the thirtieth day after the occurrence of the action or order desired to be appealed.”
FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE v. MONTGOMERY COUNTY
Court of Special Appeals, Filed May 30, 2013
http://mdcourts.gov/opinions/cosa/2013/0107s12.pdf
Short Version: The Montgomery County Police Labor Relations Act does not state that the County Council “must adopt a proposed agreement, or that it must fund its existing obligation to provide employee benefits.”