Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Wright v. State

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided April 17, 1998No. 73, Sept. Term, 1997Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partChasanow, Judge

I concur with the portion of the majority opinion titled Household Member and the determination that the defendant, Rodney Wright, was a “household member” within the meaning of Maryland Code (1957, 1996 RepLVol.), Article 27, § 35C. I dissent from the reversal of Wright’s conviction because the trial judge admitted Wright’s prior inconsistent statement to his one-time cellmate Louis Hurt. In reversing Wright’s rape and child abuse convictions, the majority reaches three illogical and unsupported conclusions. First, the rules for impeaching witnesses and parties by extrinsic evidence of their…

2Cases cited34 opinions

  1. Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  2. Edwards v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
  3. Harris v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  4. Goldsby v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
  5. United States v. Ronald F. CalvertCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1975

29 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