Green v. State, 171 A.3d 1162

Victim Myers was shot; State's theory: only Green (defendant), Copeland (co-defendant), and Myers were present and Green was the shooter.
Doris Carter, the State’s sole eyewitness, testified she saw two men (a short/stocky shooter with hood and a tall/thin non-shooter wearing a hat); she later identified Copeland as the tall/thin non-shooter in court.
Before trial the State obtained a writ to produce Copeland so Carter could identify him; defense counsel said this identification had not been disclosed in discovery.
Maryland Rule 4-263(d)(7)(B) requires disclosure of "all relevant material or information regarding ... pretrial identification of the defendant by a State’s witness." Other subsections explicitly reference co-defendants where applicable.
The Court of Special Appeals held the Rule applies only to identifications of the defendant; the Maryland Court of Appeals granted certiorari to decide (1) whether the Rule requires disclosure of pretrial identifications of co-defendants and (2) whether Carter’s identification of Copeland should have been disclosed because it effectively identified Green.
The Court of Appeals (majority) held the Rule does not generally require disclosure of co-defendant identifications, but where a co-defendant identification is effectively an identification of the defendant (given the State’s theory/evidence), it must be disclosed; the undisclosed identification here was material and prejudicial, warranting a new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Green)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether Md. R. 4-263(d)(7)(B) generally requires disclosure of pretrial identifications of co-defendants	Rule's phrase "all relevant material" is broad and should include co-defendant identifications; parity with other subsections (d)(6)(G) supports inclusion	Plain text limits disclosure to pretrial identifications of "the defendant"; other provisions explicitly include co-defendant when intended; rule history shows intentional omission	No — plain language and rule history show (d)(7)(B) does not generally require disclosure of co-defendant identifications
Whether a pretrial identification of a co-defendant must be disclosed when it is equivalent to identifying the defendant	Carter’s identification of Copeland as the non-shooter effectively identified Green as the shooter given the State’s theory and evidence; therefore it was "relevant" and required disclosure	Requiring disclosure would force prosecutors to predict defense strategy; the identification may not have been a pretrial identification; cross-examination sufficed as remedy	Yes — if a pretrial identification of a co-defendant is effectively an identification of the defendant under the case circumstances, it is "relevant material" under (d)(7)(B) and must be disclosed; the nondisclosure here was prejudicial, so a new trial is ordered

Williams v. State, 364 Md. 160, 771 A.2d 1082 (Md. 2001) (pretrial identification disclosure covers non‑traditional identifications and protects defendants from unfair surprise)
Collins v. State, 373 Md. 130, 816 A.2d 919 (Md. 2003) (failure to disclose pretrial non-identification that became inconsistent with later identification falls within Rule 4-263(d)(7)(B))
Simons v. State, 159 Md. App. 562, 860 A.2d 416 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2004) (pretrial statements that directly implicate defendant can constitute pretrial identification under Rule 4-263(d)(7)(B))