Court of Appeals of Maryland· 6/28/1988

Simmons v. State

Citations

542 A.2d 1258
313 Md. 33
1988 Md. LEXIS 89

How courts have described this case

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

holding that after a final ruling to preclude evidence on a motion in limine, requiring a defendant “to offer the evidence again during the trial in order to preserve the issue for appellate review is unwarranted and would unduly interfere with the orderly progression of the trial”
a psychologist licensed in Maryland and qualified as an expert may testify on ultimate issues
“The critical determination is whether the jury will be aided by the opinion.” (citation omitted)
“even though a trial judge has ruled to allow an expert to testify in general terms, the trial judge must engage in a separate evaluation of the admissibility of an expert opinion”
when trial court prohibited expert testimony by granting State's motion in limine, defendant was not required to renew offer of testimony at trial in order to preserve the issue for review
when trial court prohibited expert testimony by granting State’s motion in limine, defendant was not required to renew offer of testimony at trial in order to preserve the issue for review

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Cole

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

80 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.