Legal Opinion

Austin v. State

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

Decided January 31, 1992No. 343, September Term, 1991PublishedCited by 40 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMoylan, Judge

The number of occasions on which we are asked to invoke the “plain error” exemption from the otherwise foreclosing effect of non-preservation through failure to object remains so epidemic that it behooves us periodically, as forcefully as we know how, to do what we can to limit the contagion. Maryland Rule 4-325(e) states the basic and simple principle with unmistakable clarity:

“No party may assign as error the giving or the failure to give an instruction unless the party objects on the record promptly after the court instructs the jury, stating distinctly the matter to which the party…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. State v. EvansCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1976
  2. Evans v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1975
  3. State v. JenkinsCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1986
  4. Squire v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1977
  5. State v. EarpCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1990

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

3Cited by40 opinions

  1. Morris v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2003
  2. Wieland v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1994
  3. State v. FunkhouserCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2001
  4. Bates & Beharry v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1999
  5. State v. GrossCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2000

35 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