Skip to main content

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 CourtListener

Cited by

13 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

14 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

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.