Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Elmer v. State

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided February 18, 1999No. 31, Sept. Term, 1998Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partChasanow, Judge

I concur with the Court’s holding that Maryland Rule 5-410 was not violated in the instant case, but I dissent from the reversal of Elmer’s conviction for three reasons. First, the majority reaches out to reverse on an issue not properly before the Court and not decided by the Court of Special Appeals in its review of the instant conviction. The intermediate appellate court refused to decide the issue upon which this Court reverses because that issue was not raised on appeal, and Elmer’s petition for certiorari does not challenge the intermediate appellate court’s decision that the issue was…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Douglas v. AlabamaSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
  2. United States v. Donald E. MeekerCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1977
  3. Elmer v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1999
  4. Elmer v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1998

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

Powered by the Exa API