Legal Opinion
Holmes v. State
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Decided July 2, 1998No. 95, Sept. Term, 1997PublishedCited by 31 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
CHASANOW, Judge.
In the instant case, Darían Tera Holmes (Petitioner) asks this Court to determine whether a witness’s prior consistent statement is admissible under Maryland Rule 5-802.1(b) to rebut a charge of fabrication where the statement was made after a motive to fabricate arose. In our view, the issue before this Court is whether the Court of Special Appeals erred in concluding that the trial court properly admitted a witness’s prior consistent statement. For the reasons set forth below, we hold that the Court of Special Appeals did not err and therefore affirm its judgment, but for…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Tome v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
- Danial Siebert v. AlabamaSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
- David ENGEBRETSEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, Hartford Insurance Company, Intervening Plaintiff, v. FAIRCHILD AIRCRAFT CORPORATION, Defendant-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1994
- Collins v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1990
- Bruce v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1990
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by31 opinions
- People v. EppensSupreme Court of Colorado · 1999
- Attorney Grievance Commission v. FezellCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2000
- Noel v. CommonwealthKentucky Supreme Court · 2002
- State v. BrownNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1998
- State v. JonesCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2001
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.