AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |
Back to Blog
Template bill of particulars maryland3/24/2024 The appellate court explained that a bill of particular is intended to inform the defendant of the charge so that he could prepare a defense and protect himself against a later prosecution for the same offense. The State argued that if it had to particularize the facts, it would be giving away its legal theory. The defendant argued he wasn’t able to prepare adequately for trial because of the State’s response. Simply directing a defendant to discovery materials doesn’t provide sufficient notice of what the State is basing its case upon. The defendant argued that a bill of particulars is supposed to give the defendant facts that support the charges against him. The Court of Appeals agreed to hear the case, addressing the issue of whether the trial court had improperly overruled the defendant’s exceptions to the State’s bill of particulars, among other things. The defendant was unsuccessful in his appeal to the Court of Special Appeals. The defendant was convicted and sentenced to five years in prison. It focused on the defendant’s earlier push in the direction of the passing car. The State proceeded on a new theory because of the judge’s ruling. The basis for the denial was that it had looked to the driver of the car like the defendant’s pushing of the drunken man into the car was purposeful. The motion was granted with respect to manslaughter and conspiracy, but was denied with respect to reckless endangerment. The State claimed that the defendant’s actions and those of the other passenger were related.Īfter the State presented its case, the defendant moved for a judgment of acquittal. The trial court, however, overruled the defendant’s exceptions, reasoning that the Rule did not expect that State to give particulars as to all its evidence or legal theories.Īt trial, the State explained in its opening arguments that what had happened was senseless violence. The defendant filed exceptions on the grounds that the defendant had failed to answer the questions with any specificity as required by the Maryland Rule 4-241(b). The State provided vague responses that all of this information was contained in discovery. The reckless endangerment count was filed using statutory “short form.” This means that it didn’t state the factual basis for the crime.Īccordingly, the defendant asked the State to give him a “bill of particulars” that specified what in the defendant’s conduct constituted reckless endangerment, what the defendant had done to act recklessly, what the defendant had done to create a substantial risk of death or serious injury, and what facts showed the defendant had disregarded this risk. A car came by and ran over the drunken man, killing him. Then the defendant and passenger drove off. The other passenger hit the drunken man in the face knocking him into the street. The man came up to the defendant and tried to hug him the defendant almost knocked him into a car that was passing by. The defendant and another passenger came back to the man, who seemed to be drunk. In a recent case, the defendant was driving with five others when they came upon a man who was standing in the middle of the road.
0 Comments
Read More
Leave a Reply. |