Dyce v. State

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding issue preserved notwithstanding the lack of literal compliance with Rule 4-323(a) because of the temporal proximity between the ruling on the motion in limine and the prosecutor’s initial inquiry on cross-examination
• holding issue preserved notwithstanding the lack of literal compliance with Rule 4-323(a) because of the temporal proximity between the ruling on the motion in limine and the prosecutor's initial inquiry on cross-examination
• improper admission of evidence will not be preserved for appellate review unless the party asserting the error objected at the time the evidence was offered or as soon thereafter as the grounds for the objection became apparent
• generally, “im proper evidence will not be preserved for appellate review unless the party asserting error objected at the time the evidence was offered or as soon thereafter as the grounds for the objection became apparent.”
• “Given the temporal proximity between the ruling on the motion in limine and the prosecutor’s initial inquiry on cross-examination we shall exercise our discretion under Md. Rule 8-131 and consider the issue, notwithstanding the lack of literal compliance with Rule 4-323(a).”
• `in the case before us, the crime for which appellant was already on trial is virtually identical to the crime for which he has been previously convicted. Under these circumstances, admission of the prior conviction constituted a clear abuse of discretion by the trial judge ...'

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).