State v. King, slip.op

Background

King was convicted of two second-degree murders and related handgun offenses after the State presented unqualified firearms identification testimony linking bullets and casings to a Glock associated with him. 1
Before trial, the State disclosed its firearms expert and report, but King never filed a written Daubert-Rochkind motion or obtained a pretrial reliability hearing. 2
At trial, King argued the firearms evidence should be excluded because the examiner failed to follow standard procedures, not because the science itself was unreliable. 3
King later said he would file a Daubert motion, but he never did, and he renewed only a contemporaneous objection when the expert testified. 4
The Appellate Court reversed, treating Abruquah as requiring exclusion of the firearms testimony and finding the error not harmless. 5
The Supreme Court of Maryland granted certiorari and reversed, holding that King waived the reliability challenge and, in any event, could not obtain plain error relief. 6

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did King preserve a reliability challenge to the firearms methodology? 7	Maryland argued King waived any reliability challenge by limiting himself to an as-applied objection and never filing a Daubert motion.	King argued the bench notes revealed new reliability problems and justified an Abruquah claim.	King waived the reliability challenge and failed Rule 4-252. 8
Does Abruquah bar unqualified firearms identification testimony in all cases? 9	Maryland argued Abruquah was record-specific, not a categorical exclusion.	King argued Abruquah required exclusion of this similar testimony.	Abruquah was a case-specific Daubert ruling, not a per se rule. 10
If unpreserved, was admission of the testimony plain error? 11	Maryland argued any error was not clear or obvious because the law was unsettled.	King argued the admission was obvious error after Abruquah.	No plain error; any error was not clear or obvious. 12

Key Cases Cited

Abruquah v. State, 483 Md. 637 (Md. 2023) (firearms identification testimony was assessed on the specific record before the Court 13)
State v. Thornton, 2026 WL 1846743 (Md. 2026) (held Abruquah was not a per se rule and discussed preservation and Daubert record requirements 14)
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (U.S. 1993) (governs expert testimony reliability analysis 15)
Rochkind v. Stevenson, 471 Md. 1 (Md. 2020) (adopted Maryland's Daubert-style reliability framework 16)
State v. Robertson, 463 Md. 342 (Md. 2019) (abuse-of-discretion review applies to preserved evidentiary rulings 17)
Dorsey v. State, 276 Md. 638 (Md. 1976) (harmless-error standard for preserved error 18)
Rubin v. State, 325 Md. 552 (Md. 1992) (unpreserved claims are ordinarily reviewed only for plain error 19)
Beckwitt v. State, 477 Md. 398 (Md. 2022) (sets the four-part plain error test, including clear-or-obvious error 20)
United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725 (U.S. 1993) (plain-error burden rests with the defendant 21)
State v. Rich, 415 Md. 567 (Md. 2010) (waiver is the intentional relinquishment of a known right 22)
Cole v. State, 378 Md. 42 (Md. 2003) (standard of review for compliance with Rule 4-252 is de novo 23)
Hailes v. State, 442 Md. 488 (Md. 2015) (clear-error review applies to factual findings 24)
Winder v. State, 362 Md. 275 (Md. 2001) (strict compliance with procedural motion rules 25)
Denicolis v. State, 378 Md. 646 (Md. 2003) (Rule 4-252 aims to alert court and prosecutor to the precise complaint 26)
Hackney v. State, 459 Md. 108 (Md. 2018) (new interpretations apply to pending cases only when the issue was preserved 27)