Johnson v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

102 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 102 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““With respect to the interpretation of the Maryland Rules, this Court has stated that, ‘[t]he canons and principles which we follow in construing statutes apply equally to an interpretation of our rules.’ State v. Romulus, 315 Md. 526, 533 , 555 A.2d 494, 497 (1989). In order to effectuate the purpose and objectives of the rule, we look to its plain text. See Adamson v. Correctional Medical Serv., Inc., 359 Md. 238, 250-51 , 753 A.2d 501, 507-08 (2000); Huffman v. State, 356 Md. 622, 628 , 741 A.2d 1088, 1091 (1999). To prevent illogical or nonsensical interpretations of a rule, we analyze the rule in its entirety, rather than independent ly construing its subparts. See Marsheck v. Board of Trustees of the Fire & Police Employees’ Retirement System of the City of Baltimore, 358 Md. 393, 403 , 749 A.2d 774, 779 (2000). If the words of the rule are plain and unambiguous, our inquiry ordinarily ceases and we need not venture outside the text of the rule. See Adamson, 359 Md. at 250-51 , 753 A.2d at 507-08 ; Marsheck, 358 Md. at 402-03 , 749 A.2d at 779 ; Huffman, 356 Md. at 628 , 741 A.2d at 1091 .””

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Bern-Shaw Ltd. Partnership v. Mayor of Baltimore · HARIRI v. Dahne

2. “Statements of the defendant. As to all statements made by the defendant to a State agent that the State intends to use at a hearing or trial, furnish to the defendant ... (A) a copy of each written or recorded statement[.]”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Williams v. State · 159 Md. App. 594 - Cecil County Department of Social Services v. Russell

3. “The State shall not be allowed so disingenuously to circumvent the pre-trial disclosure mandated by Rule 4-263(b)(2)(A) by the device of using a derivative version of Petitioner’s statement through [a police officer’s] testimony. We hold that, upon request of the defendant, the State must furnish a defendant’s apparently available recorded statement made to a State agent, even if the State intends only to use the content of the recorded statement at trial, irrespective of whether the physical recording itself is intended for use as direct evidence at trial. For us to hold otherwise would render Rule 4-263(b)(2)(A) a nullity. The State’s argument that it provided the “substance” of Petitioner’s oral statement, pursuant to Rule 4-263(b)(2)(B), does not relieve it of its companion obligation to produce the recorded statement under Rule 4-263(b)(2)(A). Maryland Rule 4-263(b)(2) cannot be parsed as the State wishes. To allow the State to satisfy its discovery obligations under Rule 4-263(b)(2)(B), in lieu of Rule 4-263(b)(2)(A), would grant the State largely unchecked discretion to summarize, edit, or characterize the content of a defendant’s recorded statement in any form it chooses. This violates the spirit and letter of discovery of a recorded statement as provided by the rule. When a recorded statement is available, the “substance” of the oral delivery of the statement, as determined by the State, may not substitute for, or even be able to describe, the nuances, qualities, or ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 159 Md. App. 594 - Cecil County Department of Social Services v. Russell