Legal Opinion

Hubbard v. State

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided October 17, 2006No. 7, Sept. Term, 2006PublishedCited by 23 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBattaglia, J.

Petitioners, Kevin Leon Hubbard and Gary Eugene Earl, Jr., seek review of a judgment of the Court of Special Appeals affirming the trial court’s granting of a mistrial based on manifest necessity. The trial judge had declared a mistrial over Petitioners’s objections because a witness, whose identification testimony against one defendant had been suppressed, was to be called by the State to testify against the co-defendant in a joint trial. We shall hold that the judge erred by declaring that a mistrial was manifestly necessary.

I. Introduction

Petitioners were indicted on December 11, 2002, in…

2Cases cited34 opinions

  1. Bruton v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
  2. Benton v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  3. Brown v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
  4. United States v. JornSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  5. Arizona v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1978

29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by23 opinions

  1. Wilder v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2010
  2. Harris v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2008
  3. Simmons v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2013
  4. State v. FennellCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2013
  5. State v. HartCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2016

18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API