Recent Development: Peterson v. State: Limitations on Defense Cross-Examination are Permitted When the Testimony Lacks a Factual Foundation, Is Overly Prejudicial, or Has Not Been Adequately Preserved

Authors

Meghan E. EllisFollow

Abstract

The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that the defendant’s right to confrontation was not violated when the defense was precluded from cross-examining a witness about hallucinations and his potential sentence prior to entering into a plea agreement. Peterson v. State, 444 Md. 105, 153-54, 118 A.3d 925, 952-53 (2015). The court found that the defendant failed to preserve the issue of a witness’s expectation of benefit with respect to pending charges, and failed to show sufficient factual foundation for a cross-examination regarding the expectation. Id. at 138-39, 118 A.3d at 944. In addition, the court found that, although not protected by attorney-client privilege, exclusion of co-defendant’s counsel’s testimony was proper because of its prejudicial nature and limited probative value.

Recommended Citation

Ellis, Meghan E. (2016) "Recent Development: Peterson v. State: Limitations on Defense Cross-Examination are Permitted When the Testimony Lacks a Factual Foundation, Is Overly Prejudicial, or Has Not Been Adequately Preserved," University of Baltimore Law Forum: Vol. 46: No. 2, Article 6.
Available at: https://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/lf/vol46/iss2/6