Harriston v. State
Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
1Opinion of the Court
Larry Harriston v. State of Maryland, No. 739, September Term, 2019. Opinion by Wells, J. CRIMINAL LAW — STATE’S CLOSING ARGUMENT — BURDEN SHIFTING In closing argument, while the State may not comment on a defendant’s failure to testify or provide evidence, the State may fairly comment on the evidence. CRIMINAL LAW — STATE’S CLOSING ARGUMENT — “OPENING THE DOOR” DOCTRINE Analysis of State’s comments under the “opening the door” doctrine show that the comments were specifically in response to defense counsel’s closing remarks, rather than commentary on the defense’s failure to supply evidence.…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- State v. HendersonSupreme Court of New Jersey · 2011
- Gunning v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1997
- Mitchell v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2009
- Smith v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2005
- Kazadi v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2020
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.