McCain v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

21 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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Because the search at issue was without a warrant, the State had the burden of production and persuasion at the , suppression hearing. See, e.g., Epps v. State, 193 Md.App. 687 [ 1 A.3d 488 ] (2010). As appellant correctly notes in his reply brief, the State did not contend at the suppression hearing that appellant lacked a legitimate expectation of privacy in Ms. McCain’s purse. As the issue was neither raised before, nor decided by, the circuit court, we can consider the State’s contention only through the exercise of the discretion conferred upon us by Maryland Rule 8-131(a). Epps, [ 193 Md.App. at 708-10 , 1 A.3d 488 ] (citing, among other cases, Jones v. State, 379 Md. 704, 713-14 [ 843 A.2d 778 ] (2004), and State v. Bell, 334 Md. 178, 187-88 [ 638 A.2d 107 ] (1994)). We decline to do so in this case. Whether a party has a legitimate expectation of privacy in another’s property depends in part upon a consideration of the facts supporting the assertion of the expectation. See Laney v. State, 379 Md. 522, 545-46 [ 842 A.2d 773 ] (2004). Because the State did not raise the issue at the suppression hearing, there was no reason for appellant to present such evidence and he did not. Under these circumstances, consideration of the standing issue for the first time on appeal would be unfair to appellant. Jones, 379 Md. at 714 [ 843 A.2d 778 ] (the discretion to review an unpreserved issue “should not be exercised when it will work an unfair prejudice to the parties.”)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 201 Md. App. 23 - McGurk v. State

2. “Because the State did not raise the issue at the suppression hearing, there was no reason for appellant to present such evidence and he did not. Under these circumstances, consideration of the standing issue for the first time on appeal would be unfair to appellant.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Feaster v. State