DARNELL FIELDS v. STATE OF MARYLAND, CLAYTON COLKLEY v. STATE OF MARYLAND
Court of Appeals, Filed: July 9, 2013
http://www.mdcourts.gov/opinions/coa/2013/53a12.pdf
Discovery of IID files- Trial court denied defendants access to police IID files that had resulted in a “sustained” finding related to overtime fraud. Rather than remand for further findings, despite the fact that this was the defendants’ second conviction for murder, the CoA held that a new (third) trial was required.

“The Zaal test” (Discovery of Personnel Records)
– The Maryland Public Information Act (“PIA”) exempts personnel records (including IID records) from disclosure. SG § 10-616(i)
– The CoA reaffirmed the standard set forth in Zaal v. State, 326 Md. 54 (1992) for whether defendants are entitled to documents otherwise protected by the PIA in order to confront adverse witnesses:
1) The defendant has the initial burden to demonstrate a “need to inspect,” that is, “a reasonable possibility that review of the records would result in discovery of usable evidence.”
2) If the defendant demonstrates the “need to inspect,” the court must determine the appropriate level of restriction to place on the discovery
– The Zaal Court (and the instant one, quoting it) set forth interesting guidelines:
– “[o]nly when the records are not even arguably relevant and usable should the court deny the defendant total access to the records.”
– “Yet, even when discovery is appropriate, the material disclosed should be limited to that which is necessary to satisfy the demonstrated need to inspect.”
– Judge McDonald in his concurrence had an interesting point regarding whether a subpoena would qualify as “otherwise provided by law” sufficient to require production of the documents without the above-described analysis

KARL MARSHALL WALKER, JR. v. STATE OF MARYLAND
Court of Appeals, Filed: July 8, 2013
http://www.mdcourts.gov/opinions/coa/2013/74a12.pdf
Sexual Abuse of a Minor – Teacher’s aid writing creepy notes to 3rd grader expressing his love and dreams of kissing her provided sufficient basis for conviction of felony sexual abuse under CR 3-602. Rule of lenity doesn’t apply because “exploitation,” while undefined in the statute, unambiguously includes writing creepy notes.

Secondary holding:
– (Expectation of Privacy) No reasonable expectation of privacy where teacher’s aid had a desk in an open area of the school shared with other aids, did not request a lock for the desk, did not request a private locker, and labeled the drawers in the desk so as to imply that others could access them to obtain the listed items.