Jackson v. State
| Decision Date | 17 December 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. 471 Sept. Term, 2012,471 Sept. Term, 2012 |
| Citation | 56 A.3d 1242,429 Md. 530 |
| Parties | TJ Sharocko Jackson v. State of Maryland |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 7-day Trial
6 cases
-
Smith v. State
... ... statement ... Md ... Rule 5-804(b)(3). "'The underlying theory of this ... exception is that persons do not make statements which are ... damaging to themselves unless satisfied for good reason that ... they are true.'" Jackson v. State , 207 ... Md.App. 336, 348, cert. denied 429 Md. 530 (2012) ... (quoting State v. Standifur , 310 Md. 3, 11 (1987)) ... (cleaned up). The corroboration requirement contained in Rule ... 5-804(b)(3) "'serves to deter criminal accomplices ... from fabricating ... ...
-
Edwards v. State
... ... See, e.g., Bedingfield v. Commonwealth , 260 S.W.3d 805, 81415 (Ky. 2008) (determining 453 Md. 193 that DNA evidence that would "probably" produce a different result was sufficient to warrant a new trial, and need not explicitly exculpate the petitioner); People v. Jackson , 91 Mich.App. 636, 283 N.W.2d 648, 650 (1979) (employing standard of whether new testing could make a different result "possible" on retrial); Brewer v. State , 819 So.2d 1169, 1173 (Miss. 2002) (citation omitted) (stating that standard is whether DNA evidence will "probably produce a different ... ...
-
Edwards v. State
... ... See , e ... g ., Bedingfield v ... Commonwealth , 260 S.W.3d 805, 814-15 (Ky. 2008) (determining that DNA evidence that would "probably" produce a different result was sufficient to warrant a new trial, and need not explicitly exculpate the petitioner); People v ... Jackson , 283 N.W.2d 648, 650 (Mich. Ct. App. 1979) (employing standard of whether new testing could make a different result "possible" on retrial); Brewer v ... State , 819 So.2d 1169, 1173 (Miss. 2002) (citation omitted) (stating that standard is whether DNA evidence will "probably produce a different ... ...
-
Harmon v. State, 0823
... ... A statement tending to expose the declarant to criminal liability and offered in a criminal case is not admissible unless corroborating circumstances clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the statement. Md. Rule 5-804(b)(3). In Jackson v ... State , 207 Md. App. 336, 348-49, cert ... denied , 429 Md. 530 (2012), we explained: For a statement to be admissible under Rule 5-804(b)(3), the proponent of the statement must convince the trial court that "'1) the Page 26 declarant's statement was against his or her penal interest; 2) ... ...
Get Started for Free
1 books & journal articles
-
Brady Material
...to clear the accused of guilt." Edwards v. State, 453 Md. 174, 196 (2017) (citing Jackson v. State, 207 Md. App. 336, 357, cert. denied, 429 Md. 530 (2012)). 2. Mitigation evidence Mitigation evidence is evidence that tends to lessen the degree of guilt or lessen the sentence. In Cone v. Be......