Cure v. State, 195 Md. App. 557

Cure was convicted in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City of multiple CDS offenses.
The State sought to impeach Cure with a prior first-degree arson conviction.
On the first day, the court ruled that arson could be admitted for impeachment over defense objection.
Cure testified; defense elicited direct testimony about the arson conviction and probation status.
The court instructed the jury on impeachment evidence and the State did not reference the prior arson in closing.
Cure argues waiver under Brown v. State; the State contends Cure preserved or should be deemed to have preserved review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Waiver/preservation of review	Cure introduced the arson conviction on direct examination.	Brown controls; Cure preserved review or waiver does not bar appellate consideration.	Not preserved for review.
Abuse of discretion in admitting arson for impeachment	Arson is an infamous crime but has limited impeachment value and high prejudice.	Arson is an infamous crime; probative value outweighs prejudice; Jackson factors counsel admission.	No abuse; admission proper under Md. Rule 5-609.

Brown v. State, 373 Md. 234, 817 A.2d 241 (2003) (waiver when defendant testifies about prior conviction; contemplates contemporaneous objection rule)
Ohler v. United States, 529 U.S. 753, 120 S. Ct. 1851, 146 L. Ed. 2d 826 (2000) (plurality: waiver when evidence is introduced during direct examination)
Johnson v. State, 156 Md. App. 694, 848 A.2d 660 (2004) (contemporary objection rule preservation principles)
Jackson v. State, 340 Md. 705, 668 A.2d 8 (1995) (Jackson factors for weighing probative value vs. prejudice)
Beales v. State, 329 Md. 263, 619 A.2d 105 (1993) (infamous crimes and crimen falsi framework under impeachment rule)
Giddens, 335 Md. 205, 642 A.2d 870 (1994) (impeachment of distribution conviction permissible under Rule 5-609)
Woodland, 337 Md. 519, 654 A.2d 1314 (1995) (possession with intent to distribute impeachable under Rule 5-609)
Prout v. State, 311 Md. 348, 535 A.2d 445 (1988) (balancing test for impeachment convictions; probative value vs prejudice)
Nelson v. Seiler, 154 Md. 63, 139 A. 564 (1927) (infamous vs lesser crimes for impeachment; need relevance to credibility)
State v. Duckett, 306 Md. 503, 510 A.2d 253 (1986) (battery not inherently probative of credibility; arson differs as infamous crime)
State v. Giddens, 335 Md. 205, 642 A.2d 870 (1994) (found impeachment admissible for cocaine distribution conviction)
Westpoint, 404 Md. 455, 947 A.2d 519 (2008) (Md. Rule 5-609 framework; three-part test)