Court of Special Appeals of Maryland· 11/30/1989
Carter v. State
Citations
- 566 A.2d 131
- 80 Md. App. 686
- 1989 Md. App. LEXIS 196
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- a conviction for drug manufacturing, which is also proscribed by § 286, is admissible for impeachment
- the court observed that where the charged crime and the crime for which the defendant previously had been convicted were not similar, the ‘evidence had no tendency to suggest to the jury that appellant was repeating a crime he had committed in the past’
- the court observed that where the charged crime and the crime for which the defendant previously had been convicted were not similar, the `evidence had no tendency to suggest to the jury that appellant was repeating a crime he had committed in the past'
- the court observed that where the charged crime and the crime for which the defendant previously had been convicted were not similar, the “evidence had no tendency to suggest to the jury that appellant was repeating a crime he had committed in the past”
- manufacture of CDS is admissible
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Garrity, Alpert, Bloom
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
13 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Jackson v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 1995-12-07· cited 54×
- State v. GiddensCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 1994-06-10· cited 50×
- Hoerauf v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland· 2008-02-08· cited 21×
- Dyce v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland· 1990-12-03· cited 20×
- State v. WoodlandCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 1995-03-08· cited 15×
- Giddens v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland· 1993-10-04· cited 11×
- Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. GianottiCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland· 2002-10-30· cited 10×
- Dallas v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 2010-04-26· cited 7×
- Wallach v. Board of EducationCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland· 1994-02-28· cited 7×
- Stidwell v. Maryland State Board of Chiropractic ExaminersCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland· 2002-06-03· cited 6×
- In Re GARY T.Court of Special Appeals of Maryland· 2015-04-06· cited 3×
- Love v. CurryCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland· 1995-05-01· cited 1×
- Rosales v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 2019-04-17
Cites
14 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Neil v. BiggersSupreme Court· 1972-12-06· cited 7,056×
- Manson v. BrathwaiteSupreme Court· 1977-06-16· cited 5,119×
- Evans v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 1985-11-12· cited 106×
- Prout v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 1988-01-07· cited 105×
- State v. DuckettCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 1986-06-26· cited 64×
- Webster v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland· 1984-05-25· cited 55×
- Brooks v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland· 1986-10-08· cited 35×
- Burrell v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland· 1979-04-11· cited 26×
- Parker v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland· 1986-01-10· cited 19×
- Myers v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland· 1984-04-04· cited 19×
- Russell v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland· 1987-01-07· cited 17×
- Tibbs v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland· 1987-07-16· cited 14×
- Duckett v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland· 1985-01-04· cited 12×
- Paschall v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland· 1987-05-07· cited 4×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.