Vaise v. State, 227 A.3d 1154

In Jan. 2015 Stephen Vaise was found murdered; his son Matthew Vaise (appellant) was charged with first-degree murder and a firearm offense and later convicted of second-degree murder and a firearm offense after a retrial.
During pretrial preparation (about 16 months after initial scheduling), defense changed plea to not criminally responsible (NCR); Clifton T. Perkins psychiatrists (Dr. Square and supervisor Dr. Hanson) opined NCR; State later retained Dr. Ratner who disagreed.
The NCR plea and competing psychiatric evaluations produced a series of postponements; overall delay from arrest to first trial exceeded two years and triggered a Barker speedy-trial analysis focused on post‑NCR delay.
The State introduced prior-acts evidence of a Dec. 9, 2014 altercation between appellant and his father; trial court admitted it under Md. Rule 5-404(b) as relevant to motive/intent/identity with a limiting instruction.
During trial a portion of a recorded statement inadvertently including an unredacted reference to a ‘‘mistake at 17’’ involving a flare gun was played; defense moved for a mistrial and the court gave a curative instruction instead.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of Dec. 9, 2014 altercation under Md. Rule 5-404(b)	Dec. 9 incident lacked special relevance to the Jan. murder, was disputed and unfairly prejudicial	Shows motive, intent and tends to identify perpetrator; proved by police reports and admissions; limiting instruction reduces misuse	Admitted: court found special relevance (motive/intent/identity), clear & convincing proof, probative value outweighed unfair prejudice
Speedy-trial violation after NCR plea and subsequent postponements (Barker factors)	31+ month delay, much of post‑NCR delay was State responsibility (meetings, hiring expert), so Barker weighs in favor of dismissal	Delay was largely neutral or mutual; NCR plea reset preparation and both sides needed reasonable time to evaluate; defendant delayed asserting right; no actual prejudice	Denied dismissal: although delay was presumptively prejudicial, Barker balancing found NCR-related delay neutral/offset, defendant’s belated assertion and lack of prejudice weigh against relief
Mistrial for inadvertent unredacted statement (reference to trouble at 17/flare gun)	Curative instruction insufficient—credibility was central and any gun-related reference is highly prejudicial	The remark was brief, equivocal, unrelated to charged offense; single inadvertent reference cured by instruction	Denied mistrial: single, remote equivocal reference (flare gun at 17) cured by prompt limiting instruction; not incurable prejudice

Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972) (announces four‑factor speedy‑trial balancing test)
Goins v. State, 293 Md. 97 (1982) (post‑insanity‑plea hospital evaluation delay not charged to prosecution)
Carey v. State, 299 Md. 17 (1984) (order for hospital examination after insanity plea necessarily postpones trial)
Kanneh v. State, 403 Md. 678 (2008) (length of delay is triggering factor; four Barker factors applied)
Snyder v. State, 361 Md. 580 (2000) (prior quarrels admissible to show motive when closely connected in time/circumstances)
State v. Faulkner, 314 Md. 630 (1989) (third‑prong prejudice balancing for other‑crimes evidence)
Bryant v. State, 207 Md. 565 (1955) (prior assaults may be admissible to prove intent)
Rainville v. State, 328 Md. 398 (1992) (examples where inadmissible remarks may be incurable; instructive on mistrials)
Kosmas v. State, 316 Md. 587 (1989) (single unsolicited reference to refusal to take polygraph can require mistrial when credibility central)