State v. Ryon, 2
| Decision Date | 17 September 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,2 |
| Citation | 363 A.2d 243,278 Md. 302 |
| Parties | STATE of Maryland v. Minnie Sue RYON. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Certiorari to the Court of Special Appeals; C.C. for Harford County, Harry E. Dyer, Jr., Judge.
James G. Klair, Asst. Atty.G en., Baltimore (Francis B. Burch, Atty. Gen. and Clarence W. Sharp, Asst. Atty Gen., Baltimore, on the brief), for appellant.
Karl G. Feissner, Assigned Public Defender, Hyattsville (Feissner, Garrity, Levan & Schimel, Hyattsville, and Edward P. Camus, Public Defender for Prince George's Co., Upper Marlboro, on the brief), for appellee.
Argued before MURPHY, C.J., and SINGLEY, SMITH, DIGGES, LEVINE and ELDRIDGE, JJ.
We granted a writ of certiorari in this case to review the decision of the Court of Special Appeals in Ryon v. State, 29 Md.App. 62, 349 A.2d 393 (1976), on remand to that court from the Supreme Court of the United States, Ryon v. Maryland, 422 U.S. 1054, 95 S.Ct. 2674, 45 L.Ed.2d 705 (1975). With the exception of the dicta contained in footnote 17 of the opinion of the Court of Special Appeals, pertaining to the retroactive application of Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 95 S.Ct. 2254, 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975), we adopt, in accordance with Maryland Rule 811 d 3, the well-reasoned opinion of Chief Judge Orth (now an Associate Judge of this Court) in that case and affirm the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS AFFIRMED WITH COSTS; MANDATE TO ISSUE FORTHWITH.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. State
... ... On appeal, appellant inquires (1) whether the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress, (2) whether the trial court erred in admitting the testimony of a non-sequestered witness for the State whose name had not been included in voir dire, ... See, e.g., McMillian v. State, 85 Md.App. 367, 382-83, 584 A.2d 88 (1991), vacated on other grounds, 325 Md. 272, 600 A.2d 430 (1992) ; Ryon v. State, 29 Md.App. 62, 68-72, 349 A.2d 393 (1975), aff'd, 278 Md. 302, 363 A.2d 243 (1976) (per curiam) ... No Maryland ... ...
-
Smith v. State
... ... 2 ... The testimony presented at the hearing on the motion to suppress disclosed the facts surrounding appellant's arrest and the ... 2254, 2261, 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975); Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U.S. 433, 449-50, 94 S.Ct. 2357, 2366-67, 41 L.Ed.2d 182 (1974); Ryon v. State, 29 Md.App. 62, 71, 349 A.2d 393 (1975), aff'd, 278 Md. 302, 363 A.2d 243 (1976). The test to be applied to the determination whether the ... ...
-
Johnson v. State
... ... 2 An appeal was taken to the Court of Special Appeals which affirmed appellant's conviction. 36 Md.App. 162, 373 A.2d 300 (1977). Because we have ... 203 ... 5 For the present status of the law, see Everhart v. State, 274 Md. 459, 337 A.2d 100 (1975); Ryon v. State, 29 Md.App. 62, 349 A.2d 393 (1975), aff'd 278 Md. 302, 363 A.2d 243 (1976) ... 6 The majority suggest on the authority of Liebmann, that ... ...
-
Ashford v. State
... ... that Judge Spellbring erroneously denied his pretrial motion to suppress based on an alleged Fourth Amendment violation, 807 A.2d 736 2. that Judge Spellbring erroneously failed to exclude his incriminating statement, and ... 3. that Judge Spellbring erroneously ... There being no poisonous tree, there could be no poisoned fruit. Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 95 S.Ct. 2254, 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975), and Ryon v. State, 29 Md.App. 62, 349 A.2d 393 (1975), both relied on by the appellant and both dealing with the attenuation of taint, are, therefore, ... ...