Legal Opinion

Stabb v. State

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided November 22, 2011No. 2, September Term, 2011PublishedCited by 43 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHarrell, J.

This case concerns the propriety of an “anti-CSI effect,” or “no duty,” jury instruction, given before closing arguments in a criminal trial, that instructed the jury that there is “no legal requirement that the State utilize any specific investigative technique or scientific test to prove its case.” We addressed a similar issue recently in Atkins v. State, 421 Md. 434, 26 A.3d 979 (2011), and revisit it here primarily to provide additional guidance to Bench and Bar when confronted with requests (usually from the State) for this (or a similar) type of jury instruction seeking to avert the…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. State Ex Rel. Carroll v. JunkerWashington Supreme Court · 1971
  2. Commonwealth v. BowdenMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1980
  3. State v. EvansCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1976
  4. Ware v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1997
  5. Grandison v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1995

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

3Cited by43 opinions

  1. Bazzle v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2012
  2. Steamfitters Local v. Erie InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2020
  3. Lawrence v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2021
  4. State v. StringfellowCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2012
  5. Appraicio v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2013

38 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