140 Md. App. 379 - Cason v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In general, the court has “broad discretion to reopen a case to receive additional evidence.” Dyson v. State, 328 Md. 490, 500 , 615 A.2d 1182 (1992); see also Spillers v. State, 10 Md.App. 643, 649 , 272 A.2d 49 (1971) (stating that “[o]rdi-narily, there is no abuse of discretion in permitting the State to reopen its case for the purpose of proving important or even essential facts to support a conviction....”) The critical issue in determining whether a court abused its discretion in reopening the case is whether its doing so “impaired the ability of the defendant to answer and otherwise receive a fair trial.” State v. Booze, 334 Md. 64, 76 , 637 A.2d 1214 (1994), subsequent appeal at 111 Md.App. 208 , 681 A.2d 534 (1996), rev’d on other grounds, 347 Md. 51 , 698 A.2d 1087 (1997). Usually, whether the reopening of evidence impaired the defendant’s ability to receive a fair trial “is answered by reference to the State’s intention in withholding the evidence, i.e., whether it did so in order to gain an unfair advantage from the impact later use of the evidence likely would have on the trier of facts, the nature of the evidence, and its relationship to evidence already in the case.” Id. (citing State v. Hepple, 279 Md. 265, 271 , 368 A.2d 445 (1977)). In exercising its discretion, the court “must consider whether the State deliberately withheld the evidence proffered in order to have it presented at such time as to obtain an unfair advantage by its impact on the trier of facts”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Payton · 235 Md. App. 524 - Payton v. State

2. “All but one of the cases that [Cason] relies upon in support of his argument that the suppression hearing judge "assumed the role of prosecutor" in reopening the evidence involved situations in which, after the State failed to produce legally sufficient evidence, the judge reopened the State's case in order to allow the prosecution to cure this defect. These cases are inapposite. The remaining case relied upon by [Cason] involved a trial judge's "suggesting that the prosecutor should impeach [the defendant's] testimony by proof of a prior conviction," and reopening cross examination for him to do so. In those circumstances, it was clear that the trial judge had abandoned his neutral role and had acted as an advocate by assisting the prosecution in the presentation of its case.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 235 Md. App. 524 - Payton v. State

3. “suggesting that the prosecutor should impeach [the defendant's] testimony by proof of a prior conviction,”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 235 Md. App. 524 - Payton v. State