Maryland Harford Drug Lawyers Intended Cocaine

Charlie v. State

Facts:

An officer saw a man approach defendant’s car and reach inside it. Believing a drug sale had occurred, police stopped both men’s cars; defendant had only cash; the other man had cocaine.  He testified that he bought the cocaine from defendant.  Defense counsel cross-examined him about pending, unrelated charges and asked whether it was he who intended to sell drugs to defendant, who changed his mind at the last minute.  The witness denied intending to sell defendant the drugs.

If you are facing a criminal case in Harford, Maryland, contact a SRIS Law Group lawyer for help.  You can reach us at 888-437-7747

We have client meeting locations in Montgomery County (Rockville) & Baltimore, Maryland

We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case. Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter.

Maryland Harford Drug Lawyers Intended Cocaine
Maryland Harford Drug Lawyers Intended Cocaine

Holdings:

The Maryland Court made the following holding:
  • Acknowledging that Md. R. 5-802.1(b) is derived from Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(1)(B), the Court of Appeals of Maryland has adopted the United States Supreme Court’s interpretation of Rule 801(d)(1)(B) that it embodies the common-law rule requiring a prior consistent statement, introduced to rebut a charge of fabrication or improper influence or motive, to have been made before the alleged fabrication or improper influence or motive came into existence. In expressly adopting the premotive rule the court of appeals has also adopted the rationale that a consistent statement that predates the motive is a square rebuttal of the charge that the testimony was contrived as a consequence of that motive. By contrast, prior consistent statements carry little rebuttal force when most other types of impeachment are involved. Under Rule 5-802.1(b) a prior consistent statement may not be admitted to counter all forms of impeachment or to bolster the witness merely because he or she has been discredited.
  • To be admissible, a prior consistent statement must meet at least the standard of having some rebutting force beyond the mere fact that the witness has repeated on a prior occasion a statement consistent with his trial testimony. The statement must, under the circumstances in which it was given, detract from the impeachment, Md. R. 5-616(c)(2), or rebut logically the impeachment. Prior consistent statements used for rehabilitation of a witness whose credibility is attacked are relevant not for their truth since they are repetitions of the witness’s trial testimony. They are relevant because the circumstances under which they are made rebut an attack on the witness’s credibility. Thus, such statements by definition are not offered as hearsay and logically do not have to meet the same requirements as hearsay statements falling within an exception to the hearsay rule.

We have client meeting locations in Montgomery County (Rockville) & Baltimore, Maryland

We will do our absolute best to help you get the best result possible based on the facts of your case. Our law firm has the necessary experience to assist you with this matter.

Article written by A Sris
Click to Chat

Disclaimer:

These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm’s unofficial views of the Justices’ opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.