2 Md. App. 408 - Harris v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

26 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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “\ “T?he appellant did not raise the question of the incompetency or inadequacy of his counsel be fore the lower court and it cannot be raised here for the first time. Sherrod v. State, 1 Md. App. 433 ; Howard v. State, 1 Md. App. 379 ; Charles v. State, 1 Md. App. 222 . While an accused must be afforded genuine and effective representation going to the fundamental fairness of the trial (Miller v. State, 1 Md. App. 653 ), we find nothing in the provisions of Rule 1085 to justify review by this Court, on the present state of the record, of the allegation that counsel was inadequate or incompetent. Our holding does not preclude the appellant from raising the point in other proceedings available to him. We do not feel that any rights of the appellant are violated by our not now entertaining the point and, on the contrary, think that there is a concept of fundamental fairness thereby preserved. If we were to consider the point now, counsel, whose professional ability and integrity are impugned, would be afforded no opportunity to be heard.” Id. at 409.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Zimmerman