SCHEDULE OF ORAL ARGUMENTS
September Term, 2026
Thursday, October 1, 2026 - to be held at Guilford Park High School, Jessup, Maryland:
No. 2 Chase Marco Wilson v. State of Maryland
Issues – Criminal Law – 1) When a criminal defendant presents evidence that he acted under an honest but mistaken belief of facts which, if true, would negate the mental state elements required for murder, may a trial court refuse a requested mistake-of-fact instruction on the ground that the concept is “fairly covered” by general instructions on perfect and imperfect self-defense? (from the petition for writ of certiorari). 2) Did ACM err because the mistake-of-fact jury instructions, as applied in this case, was not supported by “some evidence” to generate the instruction and because, even if the instruction were generated, it would not be error not to give it if it was fairly covered by the self-defense instruction? (from the cross-petition).
Attorney for Petitioner/Cross-Respondent: Isabelle Raquin
Attorney for Respondent/Cross-Petitioner: James N. Lewis
No. 4 Alita Gaskill v. Shareef Lewis, et al.
Issues – Torts – 1) Whether this Court should overrule Southern Management Corp. v. Taha, 378 Md. 461 (2003) and adopt the same standard in civil and criminal cases as set forth in the concurring opinion in Price v. State, 405 Md. 10 (2008) and in Givens v. State, 449 Md. 433 (2016) for determining whether an allegedly inconsistent verdict is preserved for appellate review. 2) Whether the Appellate Court of Maryland erred in holding that the jury’s verdict was irreconcilably inconsistent under the Maryland Tort Claims Act and that the circuit court abused its discretion in approving the verdict sheet that allowed that inconsistent verdict. 3) Whether the Appellate Court of Maryland erred in holding that the jury instruction regarding one’s right to disagree with a police officer based on Diehl v. State, 294 Md. 466 (1982) is an incorrect statement of law and is not applicable to this case challenging unlawful police conduct.
Attorney for Petitioner: Timothy F. Maloney
Attorney for Respondent: Ryan R. Dietrich
Friday, October 2, 2026:
Bar Admissions
AG No. 12 (2025 T.) Attorney Grievance Commission v. Brian Keith Bishop
Attorney for Petitioner: Leonard H. Addison, IV
Attorney for Respondent: Anton L. Iamele
No. 7 Charles Anderson v. State of Maryland
Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Did defense counsel’s objection preserve an exception to testimony that Baltimore City police have a “truth-telling” policy? 2) As a matter of first impression, does Spain v. State, 386 Md. 145 (2005), allow a detective to bolster police witness credibility by telling jurors there is a “departmental policy” requiring police to tell the truth, and that detectives are “subject to termination” if they lie?
Attorney for Petitioner: John N. Sharifi
Attorney for Respondent: Virginia S. Hovermill
No. 9 Jewel Crowder v. State of Maryland
Issues – Criminal Law – 1) Does the ACM’s holding in Logan v. State, 164 Md. App. 1 (2006), control whether the trial court must conduct voir dire on whether the venire has strong feelings on an anticipated defense or does the SCM’s later decision affirming Logan control? 2) When the only issue in a murder trial is the viability of a defense, must a court, on request, probe the venire’s bias against that defense? 3) In voir dire, are defenses ever a mandated area of inquiry? 4) Did the trial court err in refusing to ask the venire about strong feelings on deadly force in self-defense or defense of others?
Attorney for Petitioner: Toni Holness
Attorney for Respondent: Cristin Treaster
Monday, October 5, 2026:
JD No. 2 (2025 T.) In the Matter of the Honorable Vickie Gipson, Judge of the Orphans' Court for Anne Arundel County
Justice McDonald will sit in place of Chief Justice Fader.
Justice Harrell will sit in place of Justice Killough.
Attorneys for Petitioner: Kendra Randall Jolivet
Attorney for Respondent: Hon. Vickie Gipson
No. 8 Frederick Earl Elliott v. State of Maryland
Issues – Criminal Law – 1) For purposes of determining whether a prospective juror should be excused for cause, does a rebuttable presumption of bias arise where the juror discloses during voir dire that she was the victim of a crime very similar to the crime charged in the case on trial? 2) Where Petitioner was charged with assaulting his wife and mother-in-law with a firearm, did the trial court abuse its discretion in refusing to excuse for cause a prospective juror who was the victim of a very similar act of domestic violence in a case then pending before the same trial judge? 3) Did ACM err in holding that Petitioner failed to preserve the argument that the trial court insufficiently questioned the prospective juror?
Attorney for Petitioner: Michael Wilson
Attorney for Respondent: Menelik Coates
No. 10 Corenic Construction Group, LLC v. Single Point Construction, LLC
Issues – Contracts – 1) Did ACM improperly interpret unambiguous contract terms to relieve Respondent of obligations it assented to, but subsequently changed its mind about or regretted? 2) Did ACM exceed its authority by sua sponte vacating a decision of the trial court that was not raised by either party on appeal or in its appeal briefing?
Attorney for Petitioner: Eden Brown Gaines
Attorney for Respondent: Shawn C. Whittaker
After October 5, 2026, the Court will recess until November 2, 2026.
On the day of argument, counsel must register in the Clerk’s Office no later than 8:30 a.m. unless otherwise notified.
GREGORY HILTON
CLERK