Alkaline Water Company Case Study

Improved Essays
Caldwell further alleges that there was insufficient evidence to sustain a conviction for the offense of conspiracy to commit burglary of the Alkaline Water Company. The State, for its part, avers that Caldwell’s argument is waived because the issue was never presented to the trial court. Caldwell acknowledges that the issue as to whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain his conviction was not raised before the trial court. Nevertheless, Caldwell asserts that we should engage in plain error review and reverse the conviction. Alternatively, Caldwell contends that review of this sufficiency claim is proper because Caldwell’s trial counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence before the trial court. We hold that this issue is not preserved and we decline to consider whether there was sufficient evidence to convict Caldwell of conspiracy to burglarize the Alkaline Water Company. The scope of appellate review is articulated in Md. Rule 8-131(a) and provides that “[o]rdinarily, the appellate court will not decide any other issue unless it plainly appears by the record to have been raised in or decided by the trial court . . . .” This rule has …show more content…
at 340-41. Moreover, not only was the legal question at issue well settled, but had the defendant’s counsel argued against the sufficient of the evidence, the court would have had no choice but to grant the defendant’s motion for judgment. Accordingly, we determined that it was objectively unreasonable and unprofessional for the attorney to fail to argue that the defendant did not elude police, and had he done so the outcome would have been different. We, therefore, reversed the defendant’s conviction on direct appeal because his counsel was

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    Petitioner also challenged the logic of the government’s argument that the jury instruction constituted plain error. For Petitioner, if the error was so egregious, the government should have objected at trial. Indeed, in other contexts, appellate courts applied the plain error doctrine to legal questions that were contested at the underlying trial, not in situations where there was no objection, and therefore no dispute, between the parties. In support of this argument, Petitioner analogized to the Court’s precedent in the Double Jeopardy context. Petitioner noted that the “the plainness and even egregiousness of an error in adding an extra-statutory element is of no moment for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause where an acquittal was…

    • 1083 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Despite this there is no clear meaning of what an absurd result is, therefore subjective as what may be absurd to one may be different to another. For example, in the R v Allen case, Allen would have thought being found guilty of bigamy was an absurd result. Furthermore, this rule could not be used in cases like Berriman as it was not absurd enough despite being unfair. The golden rule is also unpredictable as how can you follow word of statute if judges can change it to suit the requirements at the time. Lastly, it lacks guidelines as there is no criteria that judges need to follow apart from the fact it avoids an absurd result.…

    • 964 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The majority of the court’s opinion was presented by Justice Lewis Powell. In their analysis they concluded that the Baldus Study did not establish the clear intent of racial discrimination in the plaintiff’s case. They claimed that McCleskey failed to prove that any participating member in his case acted in a discriminatory manner against him. They concluded that discretion is crucial factor in the criminal justice process. Due to the critical need for discretion the plaintiff would have to provide clear and valid proof that discretion was abused before the court would take action.…

    • 902 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    At this point, a pretrial motion to dismiss without prejudice is fair due to the misconduct of police and the violation of the client 's Fourth Amendment Rights. "In other areas of constitutional law and criminal procedure, the Court now routinely engages in textual interpretation informed by history, yet the debate over the exclusionary rule still seems to lack any foothold in conventional constitutional interpretation" (Re, pg. 5). There should be no interpretation whether or not the client 's rights were violated due to the facts in the case that the police blatantly without regard to the U.S. Constitution and showed true police…

    • 1291 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Parol Evidence Rule

    • 1413 Words
    • 6 Pages

    Wiencek further argues that the trial court erred by considering “parol evidence to vary the effective date of the [B108 agreement] and to controvert the integration clause.” CHH, for its part, avers that the admission of parol evidence was proper because it was offered to determine whether the contract was effective. We hold that the circuit court did not violate the parole evidence rule because extrinsic evidence was not offered to add or modify any terms to the B108 agreement. Generally, parol or extrinsic evidence is inadmissible to vary the terms of an integrated contract. Foreman v. Melrod, 257 Md. 435, 441 (1970) (“‘All prior and contemporaneous negotiations are merged in the written instrument, which is treated as the exclusive…

    • 1413 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    They however recognized that Officer Rombach had acted in good faith, the court then rejected the Government's suggestion that the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule should not apply where evidence is seized in reasonable, good faith reliance on a search warrant. Then the case was taken to the Court of Appeals which also agreed that the officer did in fact act in good faith and also refused the Government's invitation to recognize a good faith exception to the rule. The Government then issued a petition for certiorari which went to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court declared that their is a “good faith” exception to the exclusionary…

    • 507 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Jacobson arguing that the court had abused its discretionary powers when it did not allow Jacobson’s attorney’s to poll the jury, and instead assumed that the jurors had abided by the restrictions placed on them to avoid news reports. The due process clause guarantees everyone the right to a trial by an impartial jury, and this was denied to Sandra L. Jacobson when public broadcasting was clearly impartial towards the prosecution, and the jurors had the means to watch said report, which would render them biased. Legally, if there is the possibility that jurors may have been exposed to material that is prejudicial, then an appellate court should be able to gauge the exposure and determine the prejudice of the jury. The trial court was able to determine that unfair prejudice from this broadcasting station, including information that would be inadmissible in trial and would therefore contaminate the jury. Several cases have shown that warnings alone do not neutralize the potential for jury contamination, so a trial court should not rely solely on the warnings it gives jurors.…

    • 500 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    R Vs Misaac Case Study

    • 863 Words
    • 4 Pages

    b) Did the trial judge reverse the onus of proof? c) Did the trial judge make a mistake in not considering that the defence might have honestly believed that consent had been given even if that was a mistake? (para. 32) HOLDING a) The trial judge engaged in speculative reasoning while rejecting evidence which led to a conviction and denied the Apl. a fair trial, which justifies a retrial.…

    • 863 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The case began when Edward Peruta was denied a concealed carry permit in San Diego County under the pretense that he did not have a predefined, “good cause,” (Gore). Peruta lost the case. Now, I will examine why Peruta lost the case. For one, it was decided that Peruta did not have a, “good cause.” San Diego Law required that the applicant had a, “good cause,” and that Peruta’s cause of self-defense was not sufficient (Gore). It was decided that this was constitutional because it only barred certain people from not using weapons.…

    • 1862 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    However, Kinsley lost the court case because he could not prove the “subjective” intent of the officers for intentionally malicious purposes, yet instead, he argued for the “objective” context of his confinement. IN the final outcome of the case, the Supreme Court did justify Kingsley’s argument about the objective context of suspects in custody through Bell v. Wolfish 441 U.S. 520 (1979), which allows for a new standard of confinement rights as a precedent for future abuses by police officers of suspects in jail. The use of “objective standard” in police brutality would now be associated with the Bell v. Wolfish case as a new precedent for future allegations: “We conclude with respect to that question that the relevant standard is objective, not subjective” (Kingsley v. Hendrickson et al , 2015, p.5). Certainly, Kingsley lost the court case, but the Supreme…

    • 1354 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Great Essays