 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Privette v. Maryland10/9/1990
instruct the jury as to the applicable law and the extent to which the instructions are binding." This Court has said "that where there was a request for instruction that was technically erroneous, the court should have included a correct instruction in his charge." Noel v. State, 202 Md. 247, 252, 96 A.2d 7 (1953). See also Clark v. State, 80 Md. App. 405, 411-15, 564 A.2d 90 (1989).
The thrust of Privette's argument was clear. The trial judge should have instructed the jury concerning the relevant portions of § 17-106, and at the same time made it clear that the failure of the MVA to give notice, if the jury should so find, would not constitute a defense to knowingly operating an uninsured motor vehicle, but was being explained to them for their consideration in determining whether Privette did have knowledge that the vehicle was not insured.
JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR HARFORD COUNTY VACATED; CASE REMANDED TO THAT COURT FOR NEW TRIAL; COSTS TO BE PAID BY HARFORD COUNTY.
Disposition
JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR HARFORD COUNTY VACATED; CASE REMANDED TO THAT COURT FOR NEW TRIAL; COSTS TO BE PAID BY HARFORD COUNTY.
Judges Footnotes
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Maryland DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|