Thompson 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 that the State's failure to produce the seizing officer did not prevent the establishment of chain of custody because the State \was no better off than it was before the 1974 statute eased its burden of production\
• holding that the State’s failure to produce the seizing officer did not prevent the establishment of chain of custody because the State “was no better off than it was before the 1974 statute eased its burden of production”
• “Sec. 10-1003 ... requires the State, upon written demand by the defendant, to produce the chemist, analyst, or any person in the chain of custody as a prosecution witness.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

4 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Lester v. State
  Court of Special Appeals of Maryland· 1990-04-03· cited 9×
• Harrod v. State
  Court of Special Appeals of Maryland· 2010-04-30· cited 3×
• Wheeler v. State
  Court of Special Appeals of Maryland· 2017-07-03· cited 2×
• Wheeler v. State
  Court of Appeals of Maryland· 2018-06-25

Cites

6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Kaczorowski v. Mayor of Baltimore
  Court of Appeals of Maryland· 1987-05-15· cited 588×
• State v. Fabritz
  Court of Appeals of Maryland· 1975-12-03· cited 179×
• Best v. State
  Court of Special Appeals of Maryland· 1989-04-27· cited 45×
• Gillis v. State
  Court of Special Appeals of Maryland· 1983-02-18· cited 12×
• Parker v. State
  Court of Special Appeals of Maryland· 1987-10-08· cited 9×
• State v. Parker
  Court of Appeals of Maryland· 1988-06-07· cited 5×