Taub v. State, No. 123

CourtCourt of Appeals of Maryland
Writing for the CourtArgued before MURPHY; COUCH
Citation463 A.2d 819,296 Md. 439
Parties, 42 A.L.R.4th 853 Edward TAUB v. STATE of Maryland.
Decision Date10 August 1983
Docket NumberNo. 123

Page 439

296 Md. 439
463 A.2d 819, 42 A.L.R.4th 853
Edward TAUB
v.
STATE of Maryland.
No. 123.
Court of Appeals of Maryland.
Aug. 10, 1983.

Page 440

James Robert Miller, Rockville (Miller & Steinberg, Rockville, on brief), for appellant.

David Favre, San Francisco, Cal.; Ruth Flaherty, Karen Levitt, Sarah Luick, Patricia Petow, Wilma Rosenberg and Steven M. Wise, Brighton, Mass. and Edward L. Genn, Rockville, on brief, for amici curiae Attys. for Animal Rights and Attys. for Animal Rights-Boston, Inc.

Carmina Szunyog, Asst. Atty. Gen., Baltimore (Stephen H. Sachs, Atty. Gen., Baltimore, on brief), for appellee.

Argued before MURPHY, C.J., and SMITH, ELDRIDGE, COLE, DAVIDSON, RODOWSKY and COUCH, JJ.

COUCH, Judge.

The issue in this case is whether the animal cruelty statute, Maryland Code (1957, 1976 Repl.Vol.), Article 27, § 59, is applicable to a research institute conducting medical and scientific research pursuant to a federal program. For reasons to be discussed herein we hold that it is not.

Dr. Edward Taub was the chief scientific investigator in charge of animal research at the Institute for Behavioral Research (IBR) which operated a laboratory in Silver Spring, Maryland. This laboratory was funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) under a series of grants outlining the specific animal research to be done by the laboratory. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) was charged with making periodic announced and unannounced inspections of the laboratory pursuant to the Federal Animal Welfare Act, 7 U.S.C.A. §§ 2131-2156 (1973 and 1976 Supp.).

During the period May-September, 1981, Dr. Taub, under an NIH grant, was conducting research to gain information to help retrain human beings afflicted with a stroke. In an effort to learn to retrain limbs damaged by a stroke, Dr. Taub simulated the effects of a stroke by creating an animal model of the conditions in humans. This was accomplished by surgically abolishing[463 A.2d 820] all sensation in the limb of

Page 441

a monkey; thereafter, experiments could be performed to retrain that limb. The surgical procedure is known as somatosensory deafferentation.

Acting on information furnished by a former employee of the laboratory, Montgomery County police investigated conditions therein, seizing a colony of monkeys pursuant to an order of court. Thereafter, in January, 1982, the county State's Attorney filed a seventeen count information against Dr. Taub charging him with violation of Maryland Code (1957, 1976 Repl.Vol.), Article 27, § 59, with regard to seventeen different monkeys. Following a trial in the District Court, Dr. Taub was found guilty of failing to provide necessary veterinary care for six of the monkeys and was acquitted of all other charges. 1 Upon appeal to the circuit court, a jury found Dr. Taub guilty of one charge of failing to provide necessary veterinary care for one monkey known as Nero.

We granted certiorari to consider a question of public importance.

While Dr. Taub has raised several issues concerning the constitutionality of section 59, preemption of this section by the Federal Act, and certain alleged errors in the trial court's evidentiary rulings, we believe the matter may be disposed of by our conclusion that section 59 simply is inapplicable to Dr. Taub and the laboratory and thus the charges against him should be dismissed. We recognize that this issue was not raised previously although it was discussed at oral argument. Under Maryland Rule 813 a our scope of review is "ordinarily" limited to questions raised and decided by the trial court. Nevertheless, as the rule employs the term "ordinarily," it...

To continue reading

Request your trial
25 practice notes
  • Jones v. State, No. 57
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • February 18, 2004
    ...to be presented was not in the case and, with regard to Rule 8-131, "[t]he factual record in this case is quite confused"); Taub v. State, 296 Md. 439, 441-42, 463 A.2d 819, 820 (1983) (deciding the dispositive issue, one of statutory construction, although not raised or decided in the tria......
  • Offen v. County Council for Prince George's County, Md. Sitting as Dist. Council, No. 1445
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • September 1, 1992
    ...were a new issue, raised for the first time on appeal, this Court has discretion under Rule 8-131(a) to consider it...."); Taub v. State, 296 Md. 439, 441, 463 A.2d 819 (1983) ("[O]ur scope of review is 'ordinarily' limited to questions raised and decided by the trial court.... [T]he rule .......
  • Richmond v. State, No. 138
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • September 1, 1991
    ...Mutual v. Kenney, 323 Md. 116, 122, 591 A.2d 507 (1991); Crown Oil v. Glen, 320 Md. 546, 561, 578 A.2d 1184 (1990); Taub v. State, 296 Md. 439, 441-42, 463 A.2d 819 (1983). Additionally, Maryland Rule 4-325(e), which requires a timely objection to an instruction Page 236 in order to preserv......
  • Connors v. Oaks, No. 1237
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • September 1, 1993
    ...235-36, 623 A.2d 630 (1993); Watson, supra, 322 Md. at 483-84, 588 A.2d 760; O'Leary, supra, 313 Md. at 196, 545 A.2d 17; Taub v. State, 296 Md. 439, 441, 463 A.2d 819 (1983); see also Medical Waste Associates, supra, 327 Md. at 603-05, 612 A.2d 241 (approving our vacating the judgment of a......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
25 cases
  • Jones v. State, No. 57
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • February 18, 2004
    ...to be presented was not in the case and, with regard to Rule 8-131, "[t]he factual record in this case is quite confused"); Taub v. State, 296 Md. 439, 441-42, 463 A.2d 819, 820 (1983) (deciding the dispositive issue, one of statutory construction, although not raised or decided in the tria......
  • Offen v. County Council for Prince George's County, Md. Sitting as Dist. Council, No. 1445
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • September 1, 1992
    ...were a new issue, raised for the first time on appeal, this Court has discretion under Rule 8-131(a) to consider it...."); Taub v. State, 296 Md. 439, 441, 463 A.2d 819 (1983) ("[O]ur scope of review is 'ordinarily' limited to questions raised and decided by the trial court.... [T]he rule .......
  • Richmond v. State, No. 138
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • September 1, 1991
    ...Mutual v. Kenney, 323 Md. 116, 122, 591 A.2d 507 (1991); Crown Oil v. Glen, 320 Md. 546, 561, 578 A.2d 1184 (1990); Taub v. State, 296 Md. 439, 441-42, 463 A.2d 819 (1983). Additionally, Maryland Rule 4-325(e), which requires a timely objection to an instruction Page 236 in order to preserv......
  • Connors v. Oaks, No. 1237
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • September 1, 1993
    ...235-36, 623 A.2d 630 (1993); Watson, supra, 322 Md. at 483-84, 588 A.2d 760; O'Leary, supra, 313 Md. at 196, 545 A.2d 17; Taub v. State, 296 Md. 439, 441, 463 A.2d 819 (1983); see also Medical Waste Associates, supra, 327 Md. at 603-05, 612 A.2d 241 (approving our vacating the judgment of a......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT