Legal Opinion

Prout v. State

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided January 7, 1988No. 131, September Term, 1985PublishedCited by 96 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

COLE, Judge.

In this case we are asked to decide several important questions: (1) whether a motion in limine, under the circumstances presented, is sufficient, in and of itself, to preserve the issues raised therein for appellate review; and (2) whether the trial court erred in refusing to admit a witness’s prostitution and solicitation for prostitution (solicitation) convictions for impeachment purposes. Furthermore, if both of these questions are answered in the affirmative, we are asked to decide whether the trial court’s refusal to allow the defendant to cross-examine the State’s principal…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. Nelson v. SeilerCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1927
  2. Ricketts v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1981
  3. Burgess v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1931
  4. Linkins v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1953
  5. Robinson v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1968

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

3Cited by96 opinions

  1. Conyers v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1999
  2. Klauenberg v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1999
  3. Simmons v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1988
  4. Henry v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1991
  5. United States Gypsum Co. v. Mayor of BaltimoreCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1994

91 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