Spicuzza v. State

Summary

The Supreme Court of Maryland affirmed the convictions, holding that the defendant preserved his challenge to the other-acts evidence sufficiently for review and that evidence involving his daughter's friends was admissible under the common scheme or plan exception. The Court held that the prosecutor's question asking why the daughter was lying was legally improper and not saved by opening the door, but the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court also upheld exclusion of the defendant's proposed honesty-character witnesses because he was not charged with a veracity-impeaching offense, his testimony was merely contradicted, and his proffers were insufficiently specific.