Atkins v. State, 26 A.3d 979

Atkins was convicted in Montgomery County Circuit Court of three counts of Second Degree Assault.
The contested issue on appeal was the trial court’s jury instruction that the State need not use certain investigative techniques or forensic tests to prove its case.
The State introduced a large non-folding knife found in Atkins’s bedroom as evidence; no forensic testing linked the knife to the crimes.
Defense argued the absence of testing and connection to the crime undermined Atkins’s defense; the court allowed the knife’s admission despite objections.
Defense cross-examination suggested testing could reveal blood, skin cells, or other trace evidence, but no such testing was performed.
The trial judge gave the investigative techniques instruction; the State highlighted the knife’s significance in closing, and Atkins appealed the instruction as improper commentary and a misallocation of the burden.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the instruction impermissibly relieved the State of its burden	Atkins argues the instruction commented on evidence and undermined reasonable doubt standard.	State contends the instruction was a correct and neutral statement of law addressing lack of specific techniques.	Yes; instruction improperly undermined the burden and invaded jury province.
Whether the instruction was fairly covered by other instructions	Atkins claims the instruction was not necessary given pattern instructions addressing reasonable doubt.	State asserts the instruction was tailored to the case facts and not subsumed by others.	No; the instruction was not fairly covered and overrode defense theory.
Whether Evans distinguishes this case	Atkins differentiates because the knife was central and forensic testing was pivotal to the defense.	State relies on Evans for allowing such curative instruction when warranted by evidence.	Distinguished; Evans is not controlling under these facts; instruction here was improper.

Evans v. State, 174 Md.App. 549 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2007) (addressed similar instruction and its potential curative effect)
Gore v. State, 309 Md. 203 (Md. 1987) (judge’s commentary on evidence may invade jury’s province)
Dempsey v. State, 277 Md. 134 (Md. 1976) (admonished judges to avoid expressing opinions on factual issues)
Patterson v. State, 356 Md. 677 (Md. 1999) (missing-inference guidance caution; weighty inferences require careful handling)
Mason, 954 F.2d 219 (4th Cir. 1992) (illustrates neutral framing of lack of testing admissibility)
Saldarriaga, 204 F.3d 50 (2d Cir. 2000) (example of a more neutral anti-CSI instruction)
Collins, 10 A.3d 1005 (Conn. 2011) (curative instructions may be appropriate when neutrally framed)