Linkey v. State

10 Citing cases

  1. State v. Huy

    960 A.2d 550 (R.I. 2008)   Cited 7 times
    Recognizing the "prophylactic purposes that underlie the exclusionary rule—to deter law enforcement officers from violating a defendant’s rights"

    See 29 Am.Jur.2d Evidence § 3 at 37 (2008) ("A matter which was not introduced or presented as evidence at trial does not come within the commonly accepted definition of 'evidence.'"). The defendant must have required the prosecution "to utilize the evidence which he has unsuccessfully challenged," Linkey v. State, 46 Md.App. 312, 416 A.2d 286, 289 (Ct.Spec.App. 1980); a defendant may not absolve the prosecutor of his or her burden of proof "by conceding the ultimate facts sought to be proved by the allegedly improper evidence." Id.

  2. Bishop v. State

    417 Md. 1 (Md. 2010)   Cited 62 times
    Recognizing that "an Alford plea is the functional equivalent of a guilty plea"

    While the State risks reversal because of insufficient evidence contained in a proffer, an accused must preserve his or her legal challenges by ensuring that the proffer includes the challenged evidence. Linkey v. State, 46 Md.App. 312, 416 A.2d 286 (1980), demonstrates this conundrum. In that case, after the trial judge denied Linkey's pretrial motion to suppress incriminating statements and other evidence, the parties proceeded by way of an agreed statement of facts. Based on this agreed statement of facts, the trial judge found Linkey guilty of second-degree murder.

  3. State v. Beechum

    933 A.2d 687 (R.I. 2007)   Cited 6 times
    In Beechum, 933 A.2d at 690, we held that the method that the parties used in this case — incorporating the arguments, issues and ultimate decision on the issue of jury selection from another trial court case — is not a proper method of presenting this important constitutional matter.

    The defendant effectively waived his right of appeal on the pretrial motion to dismiss when he agreed to amend the indictment and stipulate to the state's facts. Keohane, 814 A.2d at 329 ("The defendant's guilty plea acted as an effective waiver of his right of appeal * * *."); see also Linkey v. State, 46 Md.App. 312, 416 A.2d 286, 289 (Ct.Spec.App. 1980) (In the Fourth Amendment context a defendant cannot use a conditional plea to "absolve the prosecutor * * * by conceding the ultimate facts sought to be proved by the allegedly improper evidence" and then appeal the use of that evidence.). We therefore conclude that the defendant's appeal is not properly before this Court.

  4. Quinn v. State

    No. 1740-2021 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Oct. 28, 2022)

    Similarly, "[t]he mere existence of improperly obtained evidence . . . is unimportant insofar as the criminal trial is concerned unless that evidence is at least proffered at the trial." Linkey v. State, 46 Md.App. 312, 315 (1980).

  5. Green v. State

    No. 745-2020 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Oct. 19, 2021)

    We need not address the merits of appellant's claim regarding Ms. Carter's identification of Mr. Copeland because this evidence was not included in the agreed statement of facts that was the basis of the convictions on appeal. As this Court has explained, in a case similarly addressing an agreed statement of facts, if the Court rules that evidence is admissible, but that evidence is not contained in the agreed statement of facts, "it is difficult to see where there could be error." Linkey v. State, 46 Md.App. 312, 315 (1980). "[T]he validity of such a ruling is preserved for appellate review only if the evidence in question (or its fruits) is admitted at trial." Id. at 316.

  6. Carlisle v. State

    No. 836 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Sep. 10, 2020)

    To retain the right to appellate review, the defendant must preserve the challenge by including the disputed evidence in the agreed statement. Id. at 23-24; see also Linkey v. State, 46 Md. App. 312, 316 (1980). We conclude that Mr. Carlisle complied with Bishop's preservation requirement by including the subject evidence in the stipulated statement, and he clearly asserted and maintained his objection through to the completion of the State's recitation of the stipulation.

  7. Holmes v. State

    No. 2866 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Mar. 4, 2020)

    With respect to Holmes' statements made to Detective Hill at the Hospital, where "evidence that is the subject of the suppression hearing is never offered at trial, the trial judge's ruling on the motion is not preserved for appellate review." Jackson v. State, 52 Md. App. 327, 332 (citing Linkey v. State, 46 Md. App. 312, (1980)), cert. denied, 294 Md. 652 (1982). Accordingly, because the State did not proffer Holmes' statements from the Hospital at trial, we have no occasion to review the propriety of Judge Sarbanes' decision on this point.

  8. Yost v. State

    No. 301 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Jan. 24, 2018)

    Should such a procedure be presented, the court must reject it as inappropriate.Bishop v. State, 417 Md. 1, 25 (2010) (quoting Linkey v. State, 46 Md. App. 312, 318 (1980)). In the instant case, the substance of Appellant's statement was included in the agreed statement of facts in order to preserve the voluntariness of the statement, vel non, on appeal, rather than the sufficiency of the statement as substantive evidence.

  9. Howell v. State

    62 Md. App. 278 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1985)   Cited 6 times

    See Perkins, Criminal Law, 1st ed., at 591; Commonwealth v. DiStasio, 11 N.E.2d 799 (Mass. 1937); Aston v. State, 136 Tex.Crim. R., 122 S.W.2d 1073 (1939). In Linkey v. State, 46 Md. App. 312, 416 A.2d 286 (1980), we said "[w]e are not blind to the natural incentive of an accused . . . to consent by one means or another to a verdict of guilty on a lesser charge." The State had already established the "completed felony" through the testimony of the investigating officer that he discovered the body and observed multiple stab wounds.

  10. Jackson v. State

    52 Md. App. 327 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1982)   Cited 76 times
    Ruling based upon the identical predecessor rule to Rule 4-252(h)(C)

    Similarly, if a pretrial motion is denied and at trial appellant says he has no objection to the admission of the contested evidence, his statement effects a waiver, Erman v. State, 49 Md. App. 605, 630, 434 A.2d 1030 (1981), cert. denied, 292 Md. 13 (1981); and if the evidence that is the subject of the suppression hearing is never offered at trial, the trial judge's ruling on the motion is not preserved for appellate review.Linkey v. State, 46 Md. App. 312, 416 A.2d 286 (1980). The examples listed are not exhaustive; they simply indicate the type of actions by a defendant that can constitute a waiver of his right to challenge a trial court's ruling on a Rule 736 motion.