Court of Appeals of Maryland· 10/17/1986

Wright v. State

Citations

515 A.2d 1157
307 Md. 552
1986 Md. LEXIS 312

How courts have described this case

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

recognizing that “in determining the applicability of the double jeopardy prohibition in a particular situation, a court must primarily examine the substance of what occurred and not simply the procedural form”
holding statements made by defendant before grand jury to be admissible where defendant breached the agreement
holding statements made by defendant before grand jury to be admissible where defendant breached the agreement
stating that “in determining the applicability of the double jeopardy prohibition in a particular situation, a court must primarily examine the substance of what occurred and not simply the procedural form”
\[I]nconsistent verdicts by the court are not ordinarily permitted as a matter of Maryland common law\
“Lljnconsistent verdicts by the court are not ordinarily permitted as a matter of Maryland common law”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Murphy, Eldridge, Cole, Rodowsky, Couch, Higinbothom

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

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

Cites

66 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.