![]() ![]() The State charged the petitioner with manslaughter, reckless endangerment, and conspiracy to commit assault, and he was tried in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County. Shortly thereafter, another vehicle ran over Mr. Jones then immediately drove away, leaving Mr. Jones, who struck him in the face, knocking him down onto the roadway. The petitioner pushed him away, nearly knocking him into a slowly passing vehicle. Ramirez-Gavarete, who appeared to be highly intoxicated, staggered towards them and attempted to hug or lean on the petitioner. Once there, when he and one of the passengers, Joshua Jones, got out of the vehicle, Mr. ![]() ![]() Ramirez-Gavarete, however, and upon the suggestion of one of the passengers, the petitioner returned to the scene. in Gaithersburg, Maryland on January 6, 2008, when he came upon a man, later identified as Manuel Ramirez-Gavarete, standing in the middle of the road, and, as a result, had to swerve in order to avoid colliding with him. The petitioner, Anthony Dzikowski, was driving a vehicle with five other passengers at 1:00 a.m. We disagree with the judgments of the courts below and, thus, reverse. A divided Court of Special Appeals affirmed that judgment in an unreported opinion. ![]() The Circuit Court for Montgomery County answered that question in the affirmative. We granted certiorari in this case to determine whether, when a defendant, upon timely request, is statutorily guaranteed a bill of particulars detailing the allegations against him and the factual basis of those allegations, the State s response to the defendant s request for a bill of particulars meets the statutory requirement if it merely directs the requesting defendant to the discovery it has provided, some of it voluntarily. J., now retired, participated in the hearing and conference of this case while an active member of this Court after being recalled pursuant to the Constitution, Article IV, Section 3A, he also participated in the decision and adoption of this opinion. Harrell Battaglia Greene Adkins *Bell Eldridge, John C. CRIMINAL LAW - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - BILL OF PARTICULARS: Court of Appeals held that merely directing a defendant to discovery can not suffice as a substitute for a legally sufficient bill of particulars pursuant Maryland Code (2002) Section 3-206 (d) (5) of the Criminal Law Article. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding (1) the State’s responses to the questions posed in Petitioner’s demand for a bill of particulars were inadequate and (2) therefore, the trial court abused its discretion when it overruled Petitioner’s exceptions to those responses.Īnthony A. Petitioner appealed, arguing that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his exceptions to the State’s non-specific responses to the questions posed in his request for a bill of particulars. The trial court overruled Petitioner’s exceptions, finding that the State’s responses satisfied the statutory requirement that the State’s response “furnish the particulars sought.” A jury found Petitioner guilty of reckless endangerment. Rather than answer each question Petitioner asked in his request, the State simply directed Petitioner to discovery. Because the indictment did not set out the elements of the charged offense or the factual basis for that offense, Petitioner requested that the State provide him with a bill of particulars. Petitioner was charged with various offenses, including reckless endangerment. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |