Court of Appeals of Maryland· 7/9/2015

State v. Norton

Citations

443 Md. 517
117 A.3d 1055
2015 Md. LEXIS 482

How courts have described this case

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

observing that a forensic document, to be “testimonial” under the Alito test, “must contain a conclusion that connects the defendant to the underlying crime”
observing that “no other state supreme court nor federal circuit court of appeals” had applied the test adopted by the Court of Appeals in Derr II and thus taking the “opportunity to better refine [its] own analysis”
deciding “[i]n light of the close temporal proximity between the trial court’s ruling on the motion in limine and [witness’s] testimony” that appellant’s objection to an expert witness, despite a failure by appellant’s counsel to later object, was preserved for review
“The forensic document, to be testimonial pursuant to the Williams plurality, must contain a conclusion that connects the defendant to the underlying crime.”
“[M]any other courts also have struggled to interpret Williams and apply its tenets.”
“The Report … is testimonial pursuant to Justice Thomas’s concurring opinion in Williams, because it was certified and was signed by the analyst who had performed the test, indicating that the analyst’s results had been validated according to federal standards, even if unsworn.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Battaglia

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

11 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

29 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.