Lancaster v. State

Dissenting Opinion by

MURPHY, J.,

which HARRELL and RODOWSKY, JJ., join.

While I agree with the majority that the “clearly erroneous” standard of review is the applicable standard in the case at bar, I am persuaded that there are two reasons why the *383Petitioner is not entitled to new trial. First, because the Circuit Court expressly stated that it would revisit the protective order issue if requested to do so, that order constituted an in limine ruling that was not thereafter preserved for appellate review. As the Court of Special Appeals stated:

The motion court acknowledged the possibility that,…