Court of Appeals of Maryland· 8/23/1984

MacK v. State

Citations

479 A.2d 1344
300 Md. 583
1984 Md. LEXIS 337

How courts have described this case

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

holding that “the question of whether the exclusion of evidence is erroneous and constitutes prejudicial error is not properly preserved for appellate review unless there has been a formal proffer of what the contents and relevance of the excluded testimony would have been”
holding that \the question of whether the exclusion of evidence is erroneous and constitutes prejudicial error is not properly preserved for appellate review unless there has been a formal proffer of what the contents and relevance of the excluded testimony would have been\
stating that “a trial judge must give a requested instruction that correctly states the applicable law ... ”
stating that \a trial judge must give a requested instruction that correctly states the applicable law ...\
explaining that “an instruction directing the jury to render consistent verdicts is beneficial because it minimizes the possibility of inconsistent verdicts that result in a conviction contrary to law”
explain-ing that in determining whether the trial court should have given a requested jury instruction, an appellate court must determine whether the instruction is an accurate statement of the law

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Davidson

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

124 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

32 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

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.