State v. Phillips
179 A.3d 965
Md.2018Background
- Defendant Phillips moved in limine to exclude the State’s cell‑phone location evidence as unreliable under Reed v. State; trial judge Silkworth granted the motion and excluded the evidence.
- Six days after the ruling the State filed a bare request for in banc review; it only supplied specific points for review about a month later.
- The Circuit Administrative Judge designated a three‑judge in banc panel which heard the matter and reversed the trial judge.
- Phillips appealed the in banc decision to the Court of Special Appeals; that court held the in banc panel lacked jurisdiction and affirmed dismissal of the State’s in banc request.
- The Court of Appeals granted certiorari to resolve (1) whether § 22 permits in banc review when no direct statutory appeal to the appellate courts exists, (2) whether Phillips could appeal the in banc decision, and (3) whether the in banc court was lawfully created given Rule 2‑551 timing and reservation requirements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State may obtain in banc review of an interlocutory evidentiary ruling not immediately appealable to the Court of Special Appeals | State: § 22 grants a review right separate from a statutory "appeal" and is not limited by Courts Art. appeal rules | Phillips: § 22 must be read compatibly with statutory appeal provisions; no statutory right to appeal means no in banc review | Held: § 22 read with Rule 2‑551 requires that reserved issues be pursued as part of an appeal from a final judgment; when no appeal to the appellate courts would lie, in banc review is not available |
| Whether the in banc notice and reservation here complied with Rule 2‑551 and § 22 (timing and manner of reservation) | State: its later filings and objections sufficed; Rule 2‑551 should allow flexibility | Phillips: reservation requirements (made during the sitting and via Rules 2‑517/2‑520) and Rule 2‑551’s 10‑day notice are mandatory | Held: The State’s reservation and notice were untimely and deficient; Rule 2‑551’s timing and reservation requirements are controlling and constitutional |
| Whether an in banc court may be designated when the Rule 2‑551 filing window is missed or when judgment is not final | State: Rule 2‑551 conflicts with § 22 and is unconstitutional insofar as it limits in banc review | Phillips: Rule 2‑551 is constitutional and binding; it governs procedure | Held: Rule 2‑551 is valid under Art. IV, § 18 and § 22; the Court affirms that procedural rules may regulate in banc practice and are not unconstitutional |
| Whether the adverse party (Phillips) could appeal the in banc panel’s decision reversing the trial court | State: argued constraints on interlocutory appeals might bar Phillips’ appeal | Phillips: in banc panel’s decision is a final appellate judgment and therefore appealable | Held: A decision by an in banc court is a final judgment of that court and is appealable by an opposing party within the usual appeal periods |
Key Cases Cited
- Reed v. State, 283 Md. 374 (addresses admissibility standard the trial judge applied)
- Board v. Haberlin, 320 Md. 399 (confirms that where no appeal to appellate court lies, in banc review is unavailable)
- Dabrowski v. Dondalski, 320 Md. 392 (enforced Rule 2‑551 ten‑day filing requirement for in banc notices)
- Dean v. State, 302 Md. 493 (in banc review requires a final judgment in criminal context; in banc lacked jurisdiction)
- Estep v. Estep, 285 Md. 416 (clarified that in banc reservations preserve points for review but an in banc ruling is premature absent a final judgment)
- Washabaugh v. Washabaugh / Daniel v. Steele’s Carpet Service, 285 Md. 393 (context on § 22 and equal protection; background on in banc practice)
- Montgomery County v. McNeece, 311 Md. 194 (upheld Rule 2‑551 procedural changes and held in banc procedure must comply with rules)
- Costigin v. Bond, 65 Md. 122 (timeliness of reservation during the sitting is mandatory)
- Bienkowski v. Brooks, 386 Md. 516 (interpreted appellate path from in banc court; later superseded by 2006 § 22 amendment)
- Roth v. House of Refuge, 31 Md. 329 (early recognition that in banc review may be available where no direct appeal lies, in a distinct Baltimore‑bench context)