Henson v. State

14 Citing cases

  1. Allen v. State

    449 Md. 98 (Md. 2016)   Cited 12 times
    Enforcing a probation condition precluding a child sex offender defendant's unsupervised contact with his children as "reasonably related to the protection of children"

    been convicted and if it has no reasonable relation to future criminality. (quoting Henson v. State, 212 Md.App. 314, 327–28, 69 A.3d 26, 34, cert. denied, 434 Md. 314, 75 A.3d 319 (2013) (internal citations and quotations omitted)). The Court concluded that the condition of probation imposed “was sufficiently related to the crime for which [Petitioner] was convicted, i.e., sexual assault of a child residing in his household.”

  2. Leopold v. State

    216 Md. App. 586 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2014)   Cited 23 times
    Upholding Anne Arundel County Executive's criminal conviction for misconduct in office when he required police officers assigned to protect him to engage in political service and political activity on his behalf during working hours

    Because the Maryland Constitution and County Charter provide a method by which to remove the County Executive, we agree with Leopold that the circuit court, by prohibiting Leopold from being a candidate for elected office as a special condition of probation, improperly interfered with the process that has been put in place by the Legislature. Relying on our recent decision in Henson v. State, 212 Md.App. 314, 69 A.3d 26cert. denied,434 Md. 314, 75 A.3d 319 (2013), the State contends that Leopold's probation condition is a “narrowly tailored punishment which relates directly to the offenses at the core of his conviction” and, therefore, should be upheld.

  3. Sewell v. State

    No. 854-2019 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Aug. 30, 2021)

    Trial courts are "vested with wide discretion in determining the admissibility and propriety of expert testimony." Henson v. State, 212 Md.App. 314, 325 (2013). Although the court's decision to admit or exclude expert testimony "will seldom constitute a ground for reversal[, ]" the ruling "may be reversed on appeal 'if it is founded on an error of law or some serious mistake, or if the trial court clearly abused its discretion.'"

  4. Sewell v. State

    No. 854-2019 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Aug. 30, 2021)

    Trial courts are "vested with wide discretion in determining the admissibility and propriety of expert testimony." Henson v. State, 212 Md.App. 314, 325 (2013). Although the court's decision to admit or exclude expert testimony "will seldom constitute a ground for reversal[, ]" the ruling "may be reversed on appeal 'if it is founded on an error of law or some serious mistake, or if the trial court clearly abused its discretion.'"

  5. Heffington v. State

    No. 1899-2019 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Jul. 1, 2021)

    Granting probation is an act of clemency. Henson v. State, 212 Md.App. 314, 327 (2013). As a result, courts have broad discretion to set the conditions and scope of probation.

  6. Heffington v. State

    No. 1899 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Jul. 1, 2021)

    Granting probation is an act of clemency. Henson v. State, 212 Md. App. 314, 327 (2013). As a result, courts have broad discretion to set the conditions and scope of probation.

  7. Givens v. State

    449 Md. 433 (Md. 2016)   Cited 78 times
    Construing and quoting S. Mgmt. Corp., 378 Md. at 486, 495, 836 A.2d 627

    And, in multiple cases after Tate II, the Court of Special Appeals adopted Part C of Judge Harrell's concurring opinion in Price and concluded that, to preserve for review any issue as to allegedly inconsistent verdicts, a defendant in a criminal trial by jury must object to the allegedly inconsistent verdicts before the verdicts become final and the trial court discharges the jury. See Hicks, 189 Md.App. at 129, 984 A.2d at 256 ; Martin, 218 Md.App. at 40, 96 A.3d at 788 ; Henson v. State, 212 Md.App. 314, 323, 69 A.3d 26, 32, cert. denied, 434 Md. 314, 75 A.3d 319 (2013) (The defendant “failed to preserve his point for review by objecting prior to the jury's discharge[.]” (Citing McNeal, 426 Md. at 466, 44 A.3d at 989 ; Price, 405 Md. at 40, 949 A.2d at 637 (Harrell, J., concurring)).

  8. Meyer v. State

    445 Md. 648 (Md. 2015)   Cited 63 times
    Recognizing the shared authority of the Executive and Judiciary branches to restrict an individual's driving privileges

    "When imposing probation conditions, ‘[a] judge is vested with very broad discretion ... [in order] to best accomplish the objectives of sentencing—punishment, deterrence and rehabilitation[,]’ and is ‘limited only by constitutional standards and statutory limits.’ " Henson v. State, 212 Md.App. 314, 327, 69 A.3d 26, 34cert. denied, 434 Md. 314, 75 A.3d 319 (2013) (quoting Poe v. State, 341 Md. 523, 531–532, 671 A.2d 501 (1996) ). "[A] condition of probation must not be vague, indefinite or uncertain." Smith v. State, 306 Md. 1, 7, 506 A.2d 1165, 1168 (1986).

  9. Henson v. State

    75 A.3d 319 (Md. 2013)

    Julius Henson v. State of MarylandReported below: 212 Md.App. 314, 69 A.3d 26. Disposition: Denied.

  10. Schiff v. State

    No. 0233-2023 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Jul. 10, 2024)

    a condition "which compels a defendant to give up a fundamental or constitutional right is not in and of itself unconstitutional or invalid[,]" so long as the condition is related to the crime of which the defendant has been convicted and it has a reasonable relation to future criminality. Henson v. State, 212 Md.App. 314, 327-328 (2013) (cleaned up)