Case Title: Woodlin v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 22/22

State: maryland

Court: Maryland Supreme Court

Date: 2023-07-26T00:00:00Z

Document:
John Matthew Woodlin v. State of Maryland, No. 22, September Term, 2022.  Opinion by 
Eaves, J. 
 
CRIMINAL 
LAW 
— 
MARYLAND 
REPEAT 
SEXUAL 
PREDATOR 
PREVENTION ACT OF 2018 — STATUTORY INTERPRETATION  The Supreme 
Court of Maryland held that the Maryland Repeat Sexual Predator Prevention Act of 2018, 
codified under the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, § 10-923, does not require a 
circuit court to consider any particular factor when it determines whether the probative 
value of the evidence the State seeks to admit outweighs the danger of unfair prejudice 
under § 10-923(e)(4).  Rather, the Court explained that there is an array of factors that a 
circuit court can consider, and the Court provided a non-exhaustive list of appropriate 
factors to guide the circuit courts in future cases. 
 
CRIMINAL 
LAW 
— 
MARYLAND 
REPEAT 
SEXUAL 
PREDATOR 
PREVENTION ACT OF 2018 — ADMISSIBILITY OF PROPENSITY EVIDENCE  
The Supreme Court of Maryland held that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in 
determining that the probative value of Petitioner’s 2010 conviction, where Petitioner 
inserted foreign objects into an unconscious adults male’s rectum, outweighed the danger 
of unfair prejudice in Petitioner’s current case, where he sexually assaulted his grandson 
by performing fellatio on him and touching and licking his grandson’s buttocks. 
 
APPELLATE PROCEDURE — WAIVER  The Supreme Court of Maryland held that 
Petitioner failed to preserve for appeal his argument that the circuit court erred in failing to 
sua sponte limit the scope of the evidence of his 2010 conviction after ruling that said 
evidence was admissible. 
 
 
Circuit Court for Wicomico County 
Case No. C-22-CR-19-000613 
Argued: April 4, 2023 
 
 
 
 
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT  
OF MARYLAND* 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
No. 22 
September Term, 2022 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
JOHN MATTHEW WOODLIN 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF MARYLAND 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Fader, C.J., 
Watts, 
Hotten, 
Booth, 
Biran, 
Gould, 
Eaves, 
 
 
JJ. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Opinion by Eaves, J. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Filed: July 26, 2023 
 
* At the November 8, 2022, general election, the 
voters of Maryland ratified a constitutional 
amendment changing the name of the Court of 
Appeals of Maryland to the Supreme Court of 
Maryland.  The name change took effect on 
December 14, 2022. 
 
Pursuant to the Maryland Uniform Electronic Legal Materials 
Act (§§ 10-1601 et seq. of the State Government Article) this 
document is authentic. 
 
Gregory Hilton, Clerk 
2023-07-26 
13:29-04:00
A common law rule in American jurisprudence prohibits a government from using 
in the criminal prosecution of a defendant “evidence of [that] defendant’s evil character to 
establish a probability of his [or her] guilt.”1  Such evidence includes the defendant’s “prior 
trouble with the law, specific criminal acts, or ill name among his [or her] neighbors[.]”2  
This rule exists not to give a defendant a leg up in any criminal prosecution, but rather 
because such evidence likely will “weigh too much with the jury and . . . overpersuade [it 
so] as to prejudge one with a bad general record[,]” denying the defendant a fair opportunity 
to defend against crimes alleged by the government.3 
Maryland common law generally prohibits the use of character evidence to show a 
person’s propensity to act in accordance with their character traits or prior bad acts, but 
sexual assault trials have long been recognized as meriting a partial exception to the bar on 
propensity evidence.4  This common law exception is limited to evidence of the defendant’s 
other sexually assaultive conduct that is both similar to the act for which he or she currently 
is charged and toward the same victim.5 
 
1 Michelson v. United States, 335 U.S. 469, 475 (1948) (footnote omitted). 
 
2 Id. 
 
3 Id. at 476. 
 
4 See Acuna v. Maryland, 332 Md. 65, 74–75 (1993); United States v. Costello, 140 
F.3d 874, 881 (6th Cir. 1998). 
 
5 See Vogel v. State, 315 Md. 458, 466 (1989) (establishing the rule that evidence of 
a defendant’s other sexually assaultive behavior—against the same victim and of the same 
type—is admissible); State v. Westpoint, 404 Md. 455, 492 (2008); Hurst v. State, 400 Md. 
397, 416–17 (2007) (declining to expand the exception announced in Vogel). 
2 
 
Expanding on that common law exception, the General Assembly passed the 
Maryland Repeat Sexual Predator Prevention Act of 2018, codified under the Courts and 
Judicial Proceedings Article (“CJP”) (1974, 2020 Repl. Vol.) as § 10-923, to allow the 
State to move to introduce in a criminal trial for certain sexual offenses evidence of the 
defendant’s “other sexually assaultive behavior” that occurred either before or after the 
crime currently charged.  Under CJP § 10-923, the State may introduce evidence of prior 
sexually assaultive behavior involving different victims to help establish credibility in 
qualifying sexual assault cases.  The statute was enacted in recognition that many sexual 
assault offenses occur in private and may not generate any physical evidence.6  The 
admissibility of evidence under CJP § 10-923 depends on two necessary, sequential events: 
(1) the State proving at a required hearing four criteria and (2) the circuit court then 
exercising its discretion in favor of admissibility. 
John Matthew Woodlin, Petitioner, was arrested and charged with child sexual 
abuse and other related sexual offenses against his ten-year-old grandson, A.H.7  Before 
trial, the State timely moved pursuant to CJP § 10-923 to introduce evidence of Petitioner’s 
2010 conviction (by way of a guilty plea) for sexual assault against a different individual, 
and, after the required hearing, the circuit court granted that motion.  At trial, consistent 
with the circuit court’s ruling, the State introduced evidence of Petitioner’s prior 
 
6 S.B. 270, 2018 Reg. Sess., Fisc. & Pol’y Note. 
 
7 Like the intermediate appellate court below, for privacy reasons, we refer to the 
minor victim by the initials “A.H.,” which reflect neither his given name nor surname.  
Woodlin v. State, 254 Md. App. 691, 696 n.1 (2022). 
3 
 
conviction, and he ultimately was convicted by a jury; he noted a timely appeal.  The 
Appellate Court of Maryland8 affirmed the circuit court’s decision to put before the jury 
evidence of Petitioner’s 2010 offense and affirmed his conviction in this case. 
Petitioner sought review in this Court, and we granted certiorari, 482 Md. 31 (2022), 
to answer the following questions, which we have rephrased9: 
 
8 At the November 8, 2022, general election, the voters of Maryland ratified a 
constitutional amendment changing the name of the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland 
to the Appellate Court of Maryland.  The name change took effect on December 14, 2022. 
 
9 This Court has authority to rephrase the questions presented.  United Parcel Serv. 
v. Strothers, 482 Md. 198, 205 (2022).  The original questions for which we granted 
certiorari are: 
 
1. As a matter of first impression, under Md. Cts. & Jud. Proc. Art. §10-923, 
which permits the admission in certain circumstances of prior sexually 
assaultive behavior in prosecutions for child sexual offenses, what factors 
must a trial court consider in determining whether the probative value of that 
prior sexually assaultive behavior is substantially outweighed by the danger 
of unfair prejudice, and, specifically, is the similarity or dissimilarity 
between the two offenses one of those factors? 
 
2. As a matter of first impression, how should [the] trial [court] apply these 
factors, including the dissimilarity between the two offenses, in determining 
whether the probative value of the prior sexual assaultive behavior is 
substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, as required by 
§10-923(e)(4)? 
 
3. As a matter of first impression, if the trial court has determined that the 
probative value of the prior sexual assaultive behavior is not substantially 
outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, how much of the factual details 
including the dissimilarities between the past and present offense [may] be 
admitted at trial before the jury and what factors should be considered in 
making that determination? 
 
4. Did the trial court abuse its discretion at Petitioner’s trial for sexual abuse 
and rape of his minor grandson when it admitted evidence of Petitioner’s ten 
4 
 
1. 
Under CJP § 10-923(e)(4), must a circuit court consider certain specific factors in 
determining whether the probative value of a defendant’s other sexually assaultive 
behavior substantially outweighs the danger of unfair prejudice? 
 
2. 
How should circuit courts weigh any identified factors when conducting an analysis 
under CJP § 10-923(e)(4)? 
 
3. 
Did the motions judge abuse his discretion when he determined that the probative 
value of Petitioner’s 2010 conviction was not substantially outweighed by the danger of 
unfair prejudice? 
 
4. 
If the motions judge correctly determined that the probative value of Petitioner’s 
prior conviction was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, then 
was either the motions judge or the trial judge nevertheless required to sua sponte limit the 
scope of the evidence presented to only certain details of the prior conviction? 
 
For the reasons discussed below, we hold that there is no factor that circuit courts 
must consider in every case when conducting an analysis under CJP § 10-923(e)(4), and 
we discuss an illustrative—but not exhaustive—list of appropriate factors that circuit courts 
may consider.  The motions judge in this case did not abuse his discretion when he 
determined that the probative value of Petitioner’s 2010 conviction was not substantially 
outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.  Lastly, Petitioner waived any argument 
concerning whether the circuit court had a sua sponte duty to limit evidence admitted under 
CJP § 10-923 because he failed to raise any such argument during any of the circuit court 
proceedings.  Thus, for these reasons detailed below, we affirm the judgment of the 
Appellate Court. 
 
year old sexual abusive behavior on an adult male which was substantially 
dissimilar from the child abuse for which he was on trial? 
5 
 
I 
BACKGROUND 
Before addressing the merits of this appeal, we provide an overview of some 
pertinent evidentiary principles, as well as the facts and procedural history of Petitioner’s 
case. 
A.  
Admissible Evidence Generally, Historical Exceptions For Prosecution Of Sexual 
Crimes, And CJP § 10-923 
 
To appreciate how CJP § 10-923 operates in context, we first discuss admissible 
evidence generally and our State’s treatment of admissible evidence in the prosecution of 
sexual crimes. 
1. Evidence Generally 
Our rules make clear: relevant evidence is generally admissible; evidence that is not 
relevant is inadmissible.10  Md. Rule 5-402.  Two exceptions to Rule 5-402’s general policy 
of admission of relevant evidence are Rule 5-404(b), which bars, absent an applicable 
exception, the introduction of “[e]vidence of other crimes, wrongs, or other acts . . . to 
prove the character of a person in order to show action in the conformity therewith[,]” 
otherwise known as “propensity evidence,” and Rule 5-403, which excludes relevant 
 
10 “Relevant evidence” is that which has “any tendency to make the existence of any 
fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable 
than it would be without the evidence.”  Md. Rule 5-401. 
6 
 
evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by, among other things, the 
danger of unfair prejudice. 
The policy consideration underlying Rule 5-404(b) is to avoid tainting the jury into 
thinking that the defendant is a bad person “who should be punished regardless of his [or 
her] guilt of the charged crime, or to infer that he [or she] committed the charged crime 
due to a criminal disposition.”  Thompson v. State, 412 Md. 497, 503 (2010) (quoting 
Acuna v. State, 332 Md. 65, 75 (1993)).  Despite that prohibition, such evidence historically 
has been admissible to prove things other than a defendant’s general propensity to commit 
a crime, such as “proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, common scheme or 
plan, knowledge, identity, [or] absence of mistake or accident[.]”11  Md. Rule 5-404(b); see 
Merzbacher v. State, 346 Md. 391, 407 (1997) (noting that Rule 5-404(b) “incorporates 
well recognized exceptions” to the general prohibition of propensity evidence). 
We do not exclude relevant evidence merely because it is prejudicial, as “[a]ll 
evidence, by its nature, is prejudicial.”  Williams v. State, 457 Md. 551, 572 (2018).  Rule 
5-403 instead excludes relevant evidence when its unfairly prejudicial nature substantially 
outweighs its probative value.  Under Rule 5-403, unfair prejudice outweighs a piece of 
relevant evidence’s probative value if it “tends to have some adverse effect . . . beyond 
 
11 Rule 5-404(b) was amended on May 15, 2019 (effective July 1, 2019), to include 
as an additional exception evidence “in conformity with Rule 5-413.”  Rule 5-413, which 
was adopted on May 15, 2019, became effective on July 1, 2019, and is the counterpart to 
CJP § 10-923, authorizing the introduction of certain propensity evidence in compliance 
with that statute. 
7 
 
tending to prove the fact or issue that justified its admission.”  Montague v. State, 471 Md. 
657, 674 (2020) (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Heath, 464 Md. 445, 464 (2019)). 
By its plain language, CJP § 10-923 necessarily contemplates the introduction of 
some propensity evidence against a defendant.  But the statute is not a radical departure 
from Rule 5-404(b)’s underlying policy.  Indeed, this is not the first time we have treated 
propensity evidence differently in the prosecution of sexual offenses.12 
2. Common law exception for the prosecution of sexual crimes 
In 1989, this Court held that in Maryland, there exists a “‘sexual propensity’ 
exception to the rule excluding evidence of other crimes[.]”  Vogel v. State, 315 Md. 458, 
462 (1989).  In reaching this holding, the Court noted that the exception “is strictly limited 
to the prosecution for sexual crimes in which the prior illicit sexual acts are similar to the 
offense for which the accused is being tried and involve the same victim.”  Id. at 466.  The 
rule announced in Vogel was, therefore, a narrow common-law exception to the general 
exclusionary rule for propensity evidence.  See Thompson, 412 Md. at 503–04 
(acknowledging and discussing the rule established in Vogel).   
Years later, we declined to extend Vogel to admit evidence of similar sexual acts 
committed against a person other than the victim in the current criminal proceeding.  See 
Hurst v. State, 400 Md. 397, 415 (2007) (“[T]he State urges that . . . this Court should 
 
12 Likewise, such exceptions for prosecution of sexually based crimes have existed 
in the federal system for nearly three decades.  See Violent Crime Control and Enforcement 
Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-322, 108 Stat. 1796, 2136–37 (Sept. 13, 1994) (enacting 
Federal Rules of Evidence 413 and 414, which allow for the admission of some propensity 
evidence in the prosecution of federal sexual crimes). 
8 
 
extend its holding in Vogel . . . and allow evidence of a defendant’s prior rapes and sexual 
assaults to show such a propensity beyond the limitations we expressed in Vogel.  We 
decline to do so.”).  We clearly stated that if the scope of our rule in Vogel was to be 
expanded, then such a change would need to come from the General Assembly “or by this 
Court, sitting in its legislative capacity, exercising its authority to enact Rules of Practice 
and Procedure and Rules of Evidence[,]” id. at 418, “not by judicial fiat[,]” id. at 417.  
Since Vogel, this Court reiterated that the exception exists to prove what Rule 5-404(b) 
generally tries to prohibit: proving that a defendant has a “passion or propensity for illicit 
sexual relations with the particular person concerned in the crime at trial[.]”  Acuna, 332 
Md. at 75 (quoting Vogel, 315 Md. at 465). 
3. CJP § 10-923 
Fast forward to 2018.  The General Assembly took to heart our words in Hurst and 
enacted CJP § 10-923.  The statute codifies and expands the narrow exception announced 
in Vogel, as § 10-923’s application is limited by neither the victim’s identity nor, as we 
explain below, similarity of the act committed.  Under that section, if the State tries a 
defendant for (1) a sexual crime under Title 3 of the Criminal Law Article (“CR”), (2) 
sexual abuse of a minor under CR § 3-602, or (3) sexual abuse of a vulnerable adult under 
CR § 3-604, evidence of the defendant’s other sexually assaultive behavior may be 
admissible.  CJP § 10-923(b).  The statute defines “sexually assaultive behavior” as an act 
that would constitute one of the three crimes immediately noted above, as well as (4) a 
9 
 
violation of 18 U.S.C. Chapter 109A13 or (5) a violation of the law of another state, the 
United States, or a foreign country that is the equivalent of an offense under items (1)–(4).  
Id. § 10-923(a).  In other words, the statute does not require that the other sexually 
assaultive behavior yield a conviction.  To introduce such evidence, the State must file a 
motion at least 90 days before trial, describing the evidence that it seeks to introduce.  Id. 
§ 10-923(c).  The circuit court then must hold a hearing to determine the evidence’s 
admissibility.  Id. § 10-923(d). 
After the hearing, the circuit court may admit the evidence only if it determines that 
the State can satisfy four criteria: (1) the evidence is offered either to (i) prove a lack of 
consent or (ii) rebut an express or implied allegation that a minor victim fabricated a sexual 
offense, (2) the defendant had the opportunity to confront and cross-examine the witness 
or witnesses testifying to the sexually assaultive behavior, (3) the sexually assaultive 
behavior was proven by clear and convincing evidence at the required hearing, and (4) the 
probative value of the evidence is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair 
prejudice.  Id. § 10-923(e). 
As the plain language makes clear, before the circuit court can exercise discretion 
as to admissibility, it must ensure that the State has satisfied four criteria.  See id.; see also 
id. § 10-923(b) (“[E]vidence of other sexually assaultive behavior by the defendant . . . 
may be admissible, in accordance with this section.” (emphasis added)).  Thus, if any one 
 
13 Chapter 109A of Title 18 of the United States Code encompasses various federal 
sexual crimes and other related provisions. 
10 
 
of the criteria in (e)(1)–(4) is not satisfied, then the circuit court has no discretion to 
exercise, and the evidence is inadmissible. 
The fourth criterion, codified in subsection (e)(4), imports the same balancing test 
utilized in Rule 5-403, and determinations under that rule, if challenged, are always 
reviewed for an abuse of discretion.  See Dejarnette v. State, 478 Md. 148, 175 (2022).  
Therefore, in analyzing whether the State has satisfied subsection (e)(4), the circuit court 
must determine—by exercising its discretion—whether the danger of unfair prejudice 
substantially outweighs the probative value of the evidence the State seeks to introduce. 
But even if the State can satisfy all four criteria, the evidence is not yet necessarily 
admissible.  Satisfaction of subsections (e)(1)–(4) are conditions precedent to the circuit 
court exercising discretion whether to admit the evidence; their satisfaction does not 
automatically trigger admissibility.  See CJP § 10-923(e) (circuit court judges “may admit 
evidence . . . if the court finds” that the State has satisfied the four criteria (emphasis 
added)); see also Uthus v. Valley Mill Camp, Inc., 472 Md. 378, 395 (2021) (noting that 
this Court has a “long history” of interpreting the statutory term “may” as a discretionary 
term and “shall” as a mandatory term).  A plain reading of the statute, thus, shows that 
when the State seeks to admit evidence under § 10-923, the circuit court, assuming 
subsections (e)(1)–(3) are satisfied, will always exercise discretion at least once (in 
determining whether the State can satisfy subsection (e)(4)) and potentially twice (in 
determining whether to admit the evidence after it finds that the State has satisfied, if indeed 
11 
 
it has, subsections (e)(1)–(4)).14  We will revisit this important distinction below.  See infra 
Part III.B. 
B.  
Factual Background 
The weather was rainy and stormy on Friday, September 13, 2019, and because 
Petitioner then was homeless, his daughter—A.H.’s mother (“Mother”)—permitted 
Petitioner to stay the night at her home, as she had on prior occasions.  At the time, Mother 
lived with her husband and her three children: A.H., who was ten years old, and A.H.’s two 
older sisters.  Mother’s bedroom was on the first floor while the children’s bedrooms were 
on the second floor; A.H. had his own room, and A.H.’s sisters shared a room.  Petitioner 
and Mother agreed that he would sleep on the couch on the first floor.15 
The following recitation of events comes from A.H.’s trial testimony.  Sometime 
that evening or early Saturday morning, Petitioner went upstairs to A.H.’s room where 
A.H. was playing video games.  Petitioner sat down on an air mattress on the floor before 
 
14 That is not to say that the circuit court does not exercise its discretion when 
determining whether the State has satisfied the other criteria in (e)(1)–(3).  At the very 
least, subsection (e)(3)—determining whether the State has proved by clear and convincing 
evidence a defendant’s involvement in the other sexually assaultive behavior—also 
involves, to a degree, the exercise of discretion.  See Faulkner v. State, 314 Md. 630, 635 
(1989) (“[T]he [second] step is to decide whether the accused’s involvement in the other 
crimes is established by clear and convincing evidence.  We will review this decision to 
determine whether the evidence was sufficient to support the trial judge’s finding.” 
(citations omitted)). 
 
15 Although several witnesses testified that Petitioner was supposed to sleep on the 
couch downstairs, A.H. testified that Petitioner sometimes would sleep on the couch 
downstairs and sometimes would sleep on an air mattress on the floor in A.H.’s bedroom.  
A.H. also testified that, on the night in question, there was an air mattress on the floor in 
his bedroom. 
12 
 
he and A.H. began play fighting, which was not an uncommon activity when Petitioner 
would stay the night.  A.H. was dressed in only his underwear.  Petitioner eventually began 
touching A.H.’s genitals over A.H.’s underwear.  A.H. stopped playing with Petitioner, 
who then pulled down A.H.’s underwear and performed fellatio on A.H. while holding 
down A.H. by the arm.  Petitioner also put two–three fingers “on [A.H.’s] butt” and in his 
“butt crack,” but Petitioner did not touch A.H.’s anus.  Petitioner also licked A.H.’s “butt 
crack.”  During the entire assault, Petitioner had one hand over A.H.’s mouth and ceased 
holding down A.H. by the arm only when Petitioner placed his fingers on A.H.’s buttocks.  
Petitioner’s hand covering A.H.’s mouth prevented A.H. from calling out to Mother for 
help. 
Petitioner returned to the air mattress, and A.H. immediately left his room and woke 
up his eldest sister, who let A.H. sleep in their other sister’s bed, as that sister was not home 
that evening.  The two did not discuss what happened, but A.H.’s sister testified that A.H. 
looked frightened.  A.H. heard crying and then a door shut.  A.H. presumably heard 
Petitioner leave Mother’s house because Petitioner’s other daughter (“Aunt”) eventually 
saw Petitioner outside (undetermined where) and brought him back to her house.16 
Petitioner called Mother Saturday morning, crying and claiming that A.H. was 
trying to get him “locked up[.]”  Petitioner turned the tables and accused A.H. of sexually 
assaulting him.  Mother immediately hung up the phone.  She asked A.H. if anything 
happened between him and Petitioner, but A.H. would not say, so Mother elicited Aunt’s 
 
16 The record does not reflect that, at this point, Aunt was aware of the assault that 
had just taken place. 
13 
 
help to encourage A.H. to share the details of what occurred the prior night.  A.H. 
eventually disclosed to Aunt that Petitioner sexually assaulted him.  Aunt called Mother 
and the police and brought A.H. to the hospital where officials performed a rape kit.  There 
was no forensic evidence corroborating Petitioner’s assault on A.H. 
A few days later, Licensed Clinical Social Worker Mollie Kotis, of the Child 
Advocacy Center, interviewed A.H., who confirmed that Petitioner sexually assaulted 
him.17  Detective Sergeant Tom Funk of the Wicomico County Sheriff’s Office was 
assigned as the lead detective and observed Ms. Kotis’ interview with A.H. 
After that interview, a different detective located Petitioner, who agreed to speak 
with Det. Sgt. Funk at the station.  During the interview, Petitioner proffered a different 
series of events: he admitted going to Mother’s house the night of the incident, but he 
disclaimed ever going inside.  Instead, he maintained that he was there strictly to pick up a 
bus ticket, which one of his granddaughters hand-delivered to him.  He denied seeing or 
having any contact with his grandchildren in several years.  Petitioner eventually was 
arrested and charged with child sexual abuse and other sexual offenses. 
 
17 A.H.’s trial testimony slightly varies from his recollection of events during Ms. 
Kotis’ interview.  During the interview, for example, he made the following assertions that 
differed from his trial testimony: 
 When Petitioner arrived at A.H.’s room, A.H. was asleep and awoken by Petitioner. 
 Petitioner digitally penetrated A.H. 
 Upon entering his sisters’ room, A.H. woke both his sisters and told them that 
Petitioner assaulted him, and A.H.’s sisters responded by stating that they wanted 
to kill Petitioner. 
 A.H. told his mother about the assault after Petitioner left. 
14 
 
C.  
Procedural Background 
1. Circuit court proceedings 
Before trial, the State timely sought to introduce under CJP § 10-923 evidence of 
Petitioner’s 2010 conviction, by way of a guilty plea, for a third-degree sexual offense.  As 
the basis for that conviction, Petitioner previously admitted that he inserted both a 
broomstick and a vacuum hose (not simultaneously) into an unconscious male adult’s 
rectum and photographed the victim while those foreign objects were inside the victim. 
At the required hearing under § 10-923(d), the State indicated that both the victim 
of and eyewitness18 to Petitioner’s 2010 criminal conduct were deceased.  Thus, the State 
intended to introduce a copy of the 2010 guilty plea transcript, which the State provided to 
Petitioner in advance of the hearing.  Petitioner argued that the State could prove only the 
third requirement under CJP § 10-923(e): that his other sexually assaultive behavior (as a 
prior conviction) was proven by at least clear and convincing evidence.  While Petitioner 
argued that the State could not satisfy the first two elements—a permissible purpose for 
the evidence and Petitioner’s prior opportunity to cross examine any witnesses testifying 
to the other sexually assaultive behavior—the focus of this appeal is on Petitioner’s 
contention that the State failed to satisfy the fourth criterion: whether the danger of unfair 
 
18At the hearing, the State characterized this individual as the “witness” to 
Petitioner’s prior sexually assaultive behavior.  During Petitioner’s 2010 guilty plea for 
that conduct, however, it was clear that no individual actually witnessed Petitioner sexually 
assaulting the now-deceased victim.  Rather, Petitioner showed the photos documenting 
his sexual assault of the victim to a third party and told that third party that he (Petitioner) 
was the one who both perpetrated the depicted assault and took the photographs. 
15 
 
prejudice in admitting any evidence of the 2010 conviction substantially outweighed that 
evidence’s probative value. 
As to that issue, Petitioner argued at the hearing that presenting such evidence to a 
jury would be “substantially more prejudicial than [it would be] probative[.]”  In his view, 
the two crimes were not similar enough to be admissible: first, this case concerned a minor 
victim, and the prior sexual offense was against an adult victim; and second, the prior case 
involved insertion of foreign objects while this case contained no “weapon[.]”  The State 
argued that Petitioner’s emphasis on dissimilarities between the two acts was misplaced.  
Preliminarily, the State argued that the plain language of CJP § 10-923 does not require 
that the two instances of sexually assaultive behavior be similar or in any way connected.  
Second, even if the court were looking for similarities between the two instances, the State 
noted that both victims are male, penetration occurred against both victims,19 and that 
consent was at issue. 
The motions judge likewise gleaned an underlying issue of consent in each case: 
[THE COURT]: I mean, in the adult case, the . . . victim is not awake or is 
not able to give consent.  The defendant sexually assaults the person. 
 
In this case, it’s going upstairs into a bedroom where you have a minor victim 
who is, you know, not able to give consent, is either awake or asleep and 
woken up.  I mean, does it matter adult versus minor[?] 
 
19 When the State asserted that both cases involved anal penetration, Petitioner’s 
trial counsel did not contest that characterization.  In his brief before this Court, Petitioner 
argues that the prosecution “erroneously claim[ed] that both cases involved anal/rectal 
penetration when there was no evidence of such penetration presented by the evidence.”  
(Emphasis added).  That claim, however, is based on the evidence presented at the trial that 
had not yet occurred at the time of the hearing.  At the hearing, the parties were focused on 
A.H.’s statements during his interview with Ms. Kotis, which did allege digital penetration.  
Petitioner’s counsel acknowledged that during oral arguments. 
16 
 
 
* 
* 
* 
 
[T]he conduct is still sort of sexually assaultive behavior against someone 
that either didn’t or can’t give consent. 
 
The motions judge ruled that the State had satisfied all criteria under § 10-923(e).  
As to subsection (e)(4), he noted that the issue is not whether any prejudice would ensue 
from admitting evidence of Petitioner’s conviction, but whether the probative value of 
admitting that evidence would be outweighed by unfair prejudice.  The motions judge 
believed that “the nature of [the prior] offense . . . is consistent enough with the offense 
here, and that the probative value is not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair 
prejudice.”  He then subsequently ruled that evidence of Petitioner’s 2010 conviction was 
admissible. 
Petitioner filed a motion to reconsider, asking the motions judge to revisit his prior 
ruling under CJP § 10-923 and, to the extent that he was unwilling to change his ruling, 
“clarify what evidence from the earlier proceeding may be admitted[.]”  The court did not 
rule on that motion via a written order, so Petitioner orally renewed it at an October 2020 
pre-trial conference before the motions judge.20  Petitioner reargued only that the State 
could not satisfy the confrontation requirement under CJP § 10-923(e)(2).  The State 
disclosed that it had located the law enforcement official who previously investigated 
Petitioner’s 2010 conviction and that it would use that detective’s testimony to bring in the 
 
20 At the pre-trial conference, Petitioner’s counsel stated why he believed “the 
Court’s construction [of 10-923 was] . . . problematic.”  The motions judge asked if  counsel 
was referencing the “motion to reconsider that was filed on August the 24th[.]”  Counsel 
confirmed that he was. 
17 
 
previously provided plea transcript.  Petitioner then asked the motions judge for guidance 
on its original ruling: “[W]hat specifically [would] be admitted as opposed to just saying 
information from the case can be admitted[?]”  The State confirmed that it would seek to 
elicit testimony from the 2010 detective—confined to the information within the four 
corners of the plea transcript—and introduce the plea transcript previously provided to 
Petitioner “at the [motions] hearing[,]” as well as a true test copy of Petitioner’s conviction. 
At that point, the motions judge asked Petitioner’s trial counsel if he had anything 
further to add, to which he replied, “No.  It at least clarifies for me what it is the State’s 
seeking.  I’ll [re-object] at the appropriate time[.]”  The motions judge then denied the 
motion to reconsider. 
At trial, the State’s final witness was Corporal Steven Creason of the Queen Anne’s 
County Office of the Sheriff.  Cpl. Creason previously worked for the Ridgely Police 
Department in Caroline County and was assigned to investigate the circumstances of what 
came to be Petitioner’s 2010 conviction.  Petitioner objected to the State’s direct 
examination of Cpl. Creason, at which point a bench conference ensued.  The State 
informed the trial judge of the purpose of Cpl. Creason’s testimony and that the motions 
judge previously decided this issue.  The State confirmed that it was limiting Cpl. 
Creason’s testimony to the contents of the 2010 plea transcript.  Petitioner raised only a 
confrontation issue to the trial judge:  
[N]either [Petitioner] nor I have ever had an opportunity to cross-examine 
the individual who is the alleged victim in this case.  It never happened 
before.  It didn’t happen here.  The alleged victim in that case is deceased.  
So just advising the Court I’m going to have to just keep saying I object a 
lot. 
18 
 
 
The trial judge overruled that initial objection and the other ensuing objections throughout 
the State’s direct examination of Cpl. Creason.  The trial judge also overruled Petitioner’s 
objections to the admission of the 2010 plea transcript and the true test copy of his 
conviction.  That same day, the jury convicted Petitioner of sexual abuse of a minor and 
related sexual offenses; he timely noted his appeal. 
2. The Appellate Court of Maryland 
Petitioner asked the Appellate Court one question: did the trial court abuse its 
discretion in admitting evidence of Petitioner’s prior conviction under CJP § 10-923?  The 
Appellate Court, however, bifurcated and rephrased Petitioner’s question to ask: whether 
(1) his 2010 conviction was sufficiently similar to the charged offense so as to allow its 
admission and (2) the evidence used to prove the 2010 conviction was too salacious to be 
admitted.  The intermediate court found it “necessary to treat the admiss[ibility] . . . of 
[Petitioner’s] 2010 conviction separately from the admiss[ibility]of the allegedly 
‘salacious’ detail[.]”  Woodlin v. State, 254 Md. App. 691, 702 n.8 (2022). 
As a legal matter, the court determined that it must “first determine what role the 
similarity or dissimilarity between the offenses plays . . . .  Only then, as a factual matter, 
[could it] determine whether the probative value . . . of [Petitioner’s] 2010 conviction was 
substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.”  Id. at 702–03.  The court 
noted that a similarity analysis is a relevant question to admissibility, id. at 704, but did not 
clearly answer whether consideration of similarity is required.  The court refused to 
“engraft[] onto this balancing test a requirement that courts consider a set list of factors, as 
19 
 
[Petitioner] urges[,]” id. at 704 n.10, but nevertheless simultaneously stated that courts 
“must consider whether and how similar the two instances of sexually assaultive behavior 
actually are[,]” id. at 704 (emphasis added), and that “the question of similarity is 
necessarily a part of the balancing between probative value and unfairly prejudicial 
effect[,]” id. at 705 (emphasis added). 
The Appellate Court ultimately held that the motions judge did not abuse his 
discretion in weighing the similarity and dissimilarity and admitting the evidence.  Id. at 
705.  The motions judge, it recognized, focused on lack of consent, an issue that, in the 
Appellate Court’s view, contained evidence on both sides.  The motions judge’s decision 
to admit the evidence, therefore, clearly was not an abuse of discretion.  Id. at 705–06. 
For the “salaciousness” component of the inquiry, the court framed Petitioner’s 
argument as follows: “[E]ven if . . . [Petitioner’s] prior conviction is admissible, [did] the 
trial court nevertheless abuse[] its discretion by admitting ‘the inflammatory and dissimilar 
parts of that conviction which were not at all relevant to [the allegation] but were sure to 
rouse the jury’s hostility[?]’”21  Id. at 706 (second-to-last alteration in original).  While it 
still addressed the merits, the Appellate Court held that Petitioner waived this argument 
because he was provided the entire plea transcript on at least three separate occasions and 
 
21 The court noted that the transcript contained “four pages of potentially prejudicial 
details about the 2010 assault[.]”  Woodlin, 254 Md. App. at 707 (emphasis added).  These 
facts included details of the victim’s trauma and statements from Petitioner, the victim, and 
a witness.  Id. at 707–08. 
20 
 
never argued to the motions judge or trial judge his concern with the unredacted 
transcript.22  Id. at 708–12. 
II 
STANDARD OF REVIEW 
 
The General Assembly imported the same balancing test found in Maryland Rule 5-
403 (probative value versus unfair prejudice) into CJP § 10-923(e)(4).  When a trial court’s 
determination under Rule 5-403 undergoes appellate scrutiny, this Court has stated that 
such determinations are “discretionary,” and, therefore, are reviewed for abuse of 
discretion.  Dejarnette, 478 Md. at 175.  Under the abuse-of-discretion standard, we must 
refrain from reversing a lower court “simply because th[is] . . . [C]ourt would not have 
made the same ruling.”  State v. Matthews, 479 Md. 278, 305 (2022) (second alteration in 
original) (quoting Devincentz v. State, 460 Md. 518, 550 (2018)).  “Rather, the trial court’s 
decision must be well removed from any center mark imagined by the reviewing court and 
beyond the fringe of what that court deems minimally acceptable.”  Id. (quoting 
Devincentz, 460 Md. at 550).  In other words, an abuse of discretion occurs when “no 
reasonable person would take the view adopted by the circuit court.”  Williams, 457 Md. 
 
22 Even if Petitioner had preserved this argument, the intermediate court still would 
have held that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion.  It would be insufficient, it 
believed, simply to inform the jury that Petitioner had been convicted of a prior sexual 
crime; rather, the circuit court was within its discretion to present to the jury all the details 
surrounding Petitioner’s prior conviction, allowing the jury to determine for itself how 
similar or dissimilar the two acts were and what—if any—probative value to assign the 
past conviction.  Id. at 712–13.  The court was careful not to assign this task solely to either 
the motions judge or trial judge, noting that a motions judge could give guidance as to what 
could be admitted, subject to “refinement at trial by the trial judge when confronted by the 
actual evidence.”  Id. at 713 n.16. 
21 
 
at 563 (citing Fuentes v. State, 454 Md. 296, 325 (2017) and Alexis v. State, 437 Md. 457, 
478 (2014)). 
III 
ANALYSIS 
 
This is the first time we have been asked to interpret CJP § 10-923.  We first explain, 
utilizing our canons of statutory interpretation, why § 10-923(e)(4) does not require circuit 
courts to consider any specific factor in balancing probative value against the danger of 
unfair prejudice.  Next, we address appropriate factors that circuit courts may consider in 
assessing probative value and unfair prejudice under subsection (e)(4) and in determining 
admissibility generally under § 10-923(e) as a whole (that is, after a circuit court determines 
that (e)(1)–(4) have been satisfied).  We then discuss why the motions judge in this case 
did not abuse his discretion when he determined that the danger of unfair prejudice in 
admitting evidence of Petitioner’s 2010 conviction did not substantially outweigh the 
evidence’s probative value.  Lastly, we briefly address how Petitioner waived any 
argument concerning whether the circuit court erred by failing to sua sponte limit the scope 
of the State’s evidence.  We address the parties’ various arguments along the way. 
A. 
CJP § 10-923(e)(4) Does Not Require Circuit Courts To Consider Any Particular 
Factor 
 
Petitioner concedes that § 10-923 is “silent on what factors a trial court is to consider 
in balancing [a piece of relevant evidence’s] probative value against its potential for unfair 
prejudice.”  He admits further that a prior draft bill of the statute contained four factors that 
trial courts would have been required to assess, but that the General Assembly otherwise 
decided not to specify any factor and adopted the statute in its current form.  These four 
22 
 
factors were (1) whether the evidence offered is in dispute, (2) the similarity between the 
two offenses, (3) the closeness in time between the two offenses, and (4) the independence 
of the two offenses.  See Woodlin, 254 Md. App. at 704 n.10.  That the General Assembly 
chose not to specify any of these factors, he argues, does not preclude the circuit court from 
considering them.  He goes one step further, though, arguing that “a proper assessment” of 
probative value against the danger of unfair prejudice “requires consideration of these 
factors.”  (Emphasis added).  Petitioner primarily relies on United States v. LeMay, 260 
F.3d 1018 (9th Cir. 2001), and advocates that we, like the United States Court of Appeals 
for the Ninth Circuit, should require our circuit courts to consider certain factors when 
performing the required balancing under subsection (e)(4).  In his view, the “list set out in 
LeMay has wide acceptance.  It gives wide guidance to trial courts.  It mirrors most factors 
considered relevant by the [General Assembly], and it allows the trial court to consider 
other factors not specifically listed when they are relevant to the particular case.” 
The State agrees that the General Assembly’s decision not to enumerate a list of 
criteria does not preclude circuit courts from considering Petitioner’s proposed factors but 
urges us to reject his plea that circuit courts must consider these factors.  Instead, the State 
argues that this “task will be better served by the identification of illustrative factors, than 
by mandating a rigid test akin to the one that the [General Assembly] consciously rejected.” 
We agree with the State.  Whether circuit courts must consider in every case certain 
factors when balancing probative value against unfair prejudice under CJP § 10-923(e)(4) 
requires us to interpret the language of the statute, so we turn to the tools of statutory 
interpretation that guide our analysis: 
23 
 
Our goal is to ascertain and effectuate the intention of the legislature and we 
begin that exercise by reviewing the statutory language itself.  We read the 
plain meaning of the language of the statute as a whole, so that no word, 
clause, sentence or phrase is rendered surplusage, superfluous, meaningless 
or nugatory.  Additionally, we neither add nor delete language so as to reflect 
an intent not evidenced in the plain and unambiguous language of the statute, 
and we do not construe a statute with forced or subtle interpretations that 
limit or extend its application.  If the language of the statute is unambiguous 
and clearly consistent with the statute's apparent purpose, our inquiry as to 
legislative intent ends ordinarily and we apply the statute as written, without 
resorting to other rules of construction. 
 
Comptroller of Md. v. FC-GEN Operations Invs. LLC, 482 Md. 343, 379–80 (2022) 
(emphasis added) (citations and quotation marks omitted).  Keeping these provisions in 
mind, we have little doubt that the General Assembly intended to give circuit courts wide 
discretion and took steps not to limit the individuals in the best position to weigh probative 
value against the potential dangers of unfair prejudice. 
We start, as always, with the plain text.  The unambiguous language shows that the 
only mandates the General Assembly placed on circuit courts under § 10-923 were to hold 
a hearing on the State’s motion, see CJP § 10-923(d), and to require that the State satisfy 
certain criteria before the circuit court could exercise its discretion as to admissibility, see 
id. § 10-923(e) (permitting discretion to admit evidence only “if the court finds” 
satisfaction of (e)(1)–(4)).  Thus, the General Assembly expressly imposed mandatory 
requirements on the circuit courts in this context when it wanted to do so.  That it did not 
do so in subsection (e)(4), therefore, is persuasive evidence that it did not intend to so 
constrain the circuit courts.  CJP § 10-923 enumerates no specific factor or factors to 
consider under subsection (e)(4), but Petitioner argues that we should nonetheless adopt a 
specific set of factors that courts must consider in every case.  Consistent with the discretion 
24 
 
we have long afforded trial courts in making determinations under Rule 5-403, we decline 
that invitation. 
Nor are we persuaded by Petitioner’s suggestion to follow the Ninth Circuit’s 
approach in LeMay.  In affirming a district court’s balancing under Federal Rule of 
Evidence (“FRE”) 414 to admit evidence of LeMay’s prior sexually assaultive behavior, 
the Ninth Circuit stated that there are “several factors that district judges must evaluate” in 
determining whether to admit such evidence.  260 F.3d at 1027 (emphasis added).  Those 
factors are (1) similarity, (2) closeness in time, (3) frequency of the acts, (4) presence or 
lack of intervening circumstances, and (5) necessity of the evidence beyond testimonies 
already offered at trial.  Id. at 1028.  LeMay itself was not, however, where the Ninth Circuit 
adopted these mandatory factors.  Rather, it previously adopted them in Doe ex rel. Rudy-
Glanzer v. Glanzer, 232 F.3d 1258, 1268 (9th Cir. 2000).  Thus, we turn to that case. 
In Glanzer, which involved the application of FRE 415 (the civil counterpart to 
FREs 413 and 414), the Ninth Circuit noted that federal courts had coalesced around a 
three-step inquiry to determine whether FRE 415 applied to evidence that a party seeks to 
introduce at trial.  Glanzer, 232 F.3d at 1268.  The third step of that inquiry requires the 
evidence to be relevant, and the Ninth Circuit recognized that if a defendant truly has a 
propensity to commit the offense alleged, then evidence of the defendant previously 
engaging in that specific act is relevant and conforms to the principles established in FREs 
413 and 414.  Id.  The Court then announced and adopted the five factors it later noted in 
LeMay that district courts must assess when balancing evidence pursuant to FREs 413, 414, 
and 415.  Id. at 1268–69.  In adopting these mandatory factors, the court primarily relied 
25 
 
upon the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit’s opinion in United States v. 
Guardia, 135 F.3d 1326 (10th Cir. 1998). 
But Glanzer misinterpreted Guardia, which did not purport to adopt a strict set of 
factors that district courts must consider.  Instead, the Tenth Circuit stated that 
“[p]ropensity evidence, however, has indisputable probative value.  That value in a given 
case will depend on innumerable considerations, including” the five factors indicated 
above.  Guardia, 135 F.3d at 1331 (emphasis added).  Thus, the Tenth Circuit recognized—
much as we do—that there is an array of factors that trial courts can consider when 
balancing probative value against the danger of unfair prejudice and—like we do below—
merely provided a non-exhaustive list of factors as guidance.  Other federal courts have 
questioned the strength of LeMay’s reasoning and the requirement that district courts 
within the Ninth Circuit must consider special factors in determining whether to admit 
evidence under FREs 413, 414, and 415.  See United States v. Hawpetoss, 478 F.3d 820, 
825 (7th Cir. 2007) (recognizing that Guardia did not purport to adopt a rigid test, LeMay 
read too much into Guardia, and that the Seventh Circuit is more flexible than LeMay and 
more aligned to Guardia’s approach); see also Martinez v. Cui, 608 F.3d 54, 60 (1st Cir. 
2010) (rejecting any sort of “special rules constraining district courts’ usual exercise of 
discretion under FRE 403 when considering evidence under Rule 415,” including those 
announced in LeMay). 
We decline to adopt LeMay’s approach and instead conclude that our circuit courts 
will be better served by affording them under CJP § 10-923(e)(4) the very same latitude 
and discretion they have in making similar determinations under Maryland Rule 5-403’s 
26 
 
balancing test.  To the extent that the Appellate Court’s opinion could be interpreted to 
hold that similarity is a factor that circuit courts must consider in every case, we disagree 
and reject that part of its holding.  See Woodlin, 254 Md. App. at 704 (stating that circuit 
courts “must consider whether and how similar the two instances of sexually assaultive 
behavior are”).  Our holding comports with the plain language of the statute—which 
mentions no factor that circuit courts must consider—and our general approach to the 
exercise of discretion under Rule 5-403. 
B. 
Appropriate Factors To Consider Under CJP § 10-923(e)(4) And How To Weigh 
Those Factors  
 
Having determined that circuit courts are not required to assess any particular factor 
in every case, we next discuss which factors a circuit court properly may assess.  On this 
issue, there is much common ground between the parties.  There is no factor identified by 
either party that the other believes is an inappropriate factor to consider in at least some 
cases.  Among all the factors identified, we agree that most would be appropriate to 
consider at some point in the analysis required under § 10-923(e).  As we will explain, 
however, some of those factors are more appropriately considered when a circuit court 
balances probative value against the dangers of unfair prejudice under § 10-923(e)(4); 
while others are more appropriately considered in the final determination of whether or not 
to exercise discretion to admit the evidence (i.e., after the circuit court determines that § 
10-923(e)(1)–(4) have been satisfied).  Before we discuss each factor, we make two points. 
First, it generally is incumbent upon the parties to argue any factor they deem 
relevant or applicable.  A precondition to arguing on appeal that a factor was not properly 
27 
 
weighed or considered is that the party brought that particular factor to the circuit court’s 
attention.  See DeLeon v. State, 407 Md. 16, 29–30 (2008) (noting that defendant waived 
in this Court evidentiary arguments on bases of relevancy and unfair prejudice where the 
record reflected that he raised at trial only an objection on grounds of improper foundation); 
Md. Rule 8-131(a) (“Ordinarily, the appellate court will not decide any other issue unless 
it plainly appears by the record to have been raised in or decided by the trial court[.]”).   
Second, because the list we provide today is illustrative—not exhaustive—the State 
and future defendants are, of course, free to argue for other factors not specified in this 
opinion.  If the trial court believes that a factor not enumerated here is one that should be 
considered in a particular case, then it should weigh it along with all other pertinent factors, 
either before making a decision under subsection (e)(4) or as to admissibility generally, 
depending on the nature of the factor. 
With those points in mind, we now move to the factors identified by the parties, 
which we divide into three categories: those used for assessing probative value under 
subsection (e)(4), those used for assessing unfair prejudice under subsection (e)(4), and 
those that are better suited to the ultimate discretionary issue of admissibility after 
satisfaction of subsection (e)(1)–(4). 
1. Factors concerning probative value under CJP § 10-923(e)(4) 
i. similarity or dissimilarity of the acts 
While we do not hold that circuit courts must consider the similarity between the 
two instances of sexually assaultive behavior in every case, we nevertheless agree with the 
parties that it is an appropriate factor a circuit court may consider.  The State argues that a 
28 
 
“defendant’s other sexually assaultive conduct need only have ‘some threshold similarity 
to the crime charged[,]’” and that we should focus on the similarities over the differences.  
Petitioner asserts that the purpose of CJP § 10-923, at least as relevant to this case, is to 
bolster the credibility of A.H.; thus, evidence of “dissimilar activities with a dissimilar 
individual in no way serves this same purpose and does not make [A.H.’s] testimony any 
more credible or believable.” 
We think the two are inextricably intertwined.  Any similarity analysis necessarily 
involves an assessment of both similarities and differences.  Counting similarities while 
ignoring differences, or vice versa, would result in an incomplete analysis.  As the 
Appellate Court rightly noted, as the similarity between the two acts increases, so too does 
the evidence’s probative value.  Woodlin, 254 Md. App. at 704.  As similarity decreases 
(i.e., as dissimilarity increases), the more likely it is that the evidence’s probative value 
will be outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.  Id. 
Once a party raises as an applicable factor the similarity or dissimilarity of the acts, 
then circuit courts generally should assess at least two categories: (1) the characteristics of 
the victim and (2) the nature of the defendant’s conduct.  To the former, the analysis 
includes the victim’s age, biological sex, gender identity, and status (mental state, physical 
prowess, capabilities, etc.); as to the defendant’s conduct, the assessment includes both the 
method of perpetrating the sexual offense (use of violence/weapons, use of drugs to 
incapacitate, abuse of a position of trust, etc.) and the sexual offense itself (the specific acts 
committed, the location of the assault, etc.).  See United States v. Weber, 987 F.3d 789, 793 
(8th Cir. 2021) (upholding use of evidence under FRE 413 and 414 where defendant 
29 
 
sexually assaulted other children by abusing his role as a pediatrician); LeMay, 260 F.3d at 
1029 (noting that the propensity evidence was very similar to the crime charged: each 
involved forced oral sex against the defendant’s younger relatives while the defendant was 
babysitting those relatives); State v. Devon D., 138 A.3d 849, 856–57 (Conn. 2016) 
(holding that evidence of defendant’s sexual abuse of his three biological children would 
have been cross-admissible despite refusal to sever the charges because the assaults 
(forcing children to watch pornography and helping them bathe as a guise for digital 
penetration) involved prepubescent children and were perpetrated when the defendant had 
unsupervised visitation with the children at one of two locations, and because defendant 
instructed each child not to disclose the assault); State v. Ring, 424 P.3d 845, 853 (Utah 
2018) (holding that defendant’s prior act evidence was highly probative due to age of the 
victim, setting, and opportunity, and that the passage of time, alone, was not enough to 
outweigh the evidence’s probative value); State v. Davison, 636 S.W.3d 588, 594 (Mo. Ct. 
App. 2021) (noting that defendant’s prior sexual acts were “quite similar” to the crime 
charged in that they both involved four-year-old females whom the defendant had taken 
into a bedroom and forced to perform oral sex on him and that the trial court did not abuse 
its discretion in admitting that evidence); Schuler v. Comm’r of Correc., 238 A.3d 835, 845 
(Conn. App. Ct. 2020) (holding that defendant’s prior sexually assaultive behavior was 
probative of crime charged because it involved the same victim and, on both occasions, the 
victim was intoxicated prior to going to sleep and awoke to the defendant assaulting her); 
State v. Modes, 475 P.3d 153, 160–61 (Utah Ct. App. 2020) (holding that evidence of 
defendant’s other sexually assaultive behavior was “highly probative” where the victim’s 
30 
 
age, setting of the offense charged, opportunity, and defendant’s modus operandi all were 
similar).   
ii. temporal proximity and intervening circumstances 
The parties agree that the closer in time between the other sexually assaultive 
behavior and the crime charged, the more probative it becomes to proving the crime 
charged.  We agree with that commonsense approach.  See State v. Rainey, 175 A.3d 1169, 
1182 (R.I. 2018) (stating that “nonremote similar sexual offenses” against a third party by 
a defendant are inadmissible in a current trial against that defendant); State v. Summers, 
629 S.E.2d 902, 906 (N.C. 2006) (noting that similarity of the acts committed and temporal 
proximity “govern” in the admission of a defendant’s other sexually assaultive behavior); 
cf. State v. Winter, 648 A.2d 624, 629 (Vt. 1994) (“[T]emporal proximity is a prerequisite 
in plan or scheme cases.”).  The State posits that it is appropriate to consider intervening 
circumstances between the crime charged and a defendant’s other sexually assaultive 
behavior.  It relies on State v. Williams, which stated: 
The conduct underlying Williams’s prior conviction occurred in 1996, and 
the acts with which he was charged in the present case began in 2008.  
However, Williams was incarcerated for much of this period.  The acts 
charged began within five years of Williams’s release from prison.  This is 
adequate to give the prior conviction probative value. 
 
548 S.W.3d 275, 289 n.14 (Mo. 2018).  Petitioner agrees with Williams, noting that 
“incarceration [can] . . . explain[] the lack of any temporal proximity to the charged sexual 
offense by establishing that the accused was incarcerated at that time.”  He also implicitly 
endorses the “intervening circumstances” factor by advocating for the LeMay factors. 
31 
 
We also believe that when intervening circumstances give context to the temporal 
proximity between events, courts may consider them in assessing this factor.  For example, 
a circuit court reasonably could conclude that a period of incarceration intervening between 
a prior incident of other sexually assaultive behavior and the crime at issue should be 
excluded when considering the probative value of the gap in time between the events.  See, 
e.g., id.  We agree that any intervening circumstance (not just incarceration) may be an 
appropriate factor to consider. 
iii. frequency of sexually assaultive behavior 
This factor is rather straightforward to apply: the more frequent the defendant’s 
other sexually assaultive behavior, the more probative it becomes of the crime charged.  
The parties agree with this assessment, and we see no reason to exclude this factor from 
consideration.  See, e.g., United States v. Seymour, 468 F.3d 378, 382 (6th Cir. 2006) 
(approving two sexual assault witnesses’ testimony under FRE 414 because the district 
court concluded that the assaults occurred close enough in time to the crime charged “and 
with enough frequency to be sufficiently probative”); People v. Trujillo Garcia, 89 Cal. 
App. 4th 1321, 1332 (2001) (noting that the value of uncharged sexual misconduct will 
depend on various factors including frequency, similarity, and temporal proximity to the 
charged offense). 
2. Factors concerning unfair prejudice under CJP § 10-923(e)(4) 
i. overshadowing of the crime charged 
According to Petitioner, in assessing whether unfair prejudice exists, courts should 
weigh “the inflammatory character of the evidence against the utility the evidence will 
32 
 
provide to the jurors’ evaluations of the case.”  The State concedes that this factor weighs 
in favor of admission when the sexually assaultive behavior is “comparable to, or less than, 
that of the charged conduct[.]” 
Again, common sense dictates that this is an appropriate factor for circuit courts to 
consider.  If juries were allowed to consider heinous acts that completely overshadow the 
crime charged, then we run the risk that juries predominantly will focus on the other 
sexually assaultive behavior and not the present charge.  See Davison, 636 S.W.3d at 594 
(recognizing overshadowing as one of many factors in a propensity-evidence analysis); 
State v. Meeks, 34 N.E.3d 382, 398 (Ohio Ct. App. 2015) (noting that juries are more likely 
to convict based on propensity grounds when the other crimes/bad acts evidence is more 
inflammatory than the crime charged). 
ii. the jury’s knowledge that a defendant previously was punished 
The State argues that the jury’s knowledge of a conviction (as opposed to just mere 
allegations) can be beneficial to a defendant.  As the State sees it, when a jury “knows the 
defendant was convicted for the past criminal acts,” it will be less likely to “infer (or, worse, 
speculate) [that] the defendant escaped punishment in the past [and] be inclined to convict 
merely to punish the defendant for past criminal acts[.]”  Petitioner argues that while 
informing a jury of a defendant’s past conviction can decrease the risk that the jury will 
convict the defendant of the currently charged crime on improper grounds, such knowledge 
does not eliminate the risk.23 
 
23 Petitioner further contends that informing juries about a defendant’s prior 
conviction—absent any information about the actual sentence received—does more harm 
33 
 
We agree this may be an appropriate factor a circuit court may consider.  If a jury is 
not given the opportunity to speculate whether the other sexually assaultive behavior 
resulted in a conviction, then it is less likely to be swayed by the notion that the defendant 
previously escaped punishment.  See United States v. Lau, 828 F.2d 871, 874 (1st Cir. 
1987) (weighing probative value of prior bad act evidence against the prejudicial risk that 
a jury would convict a defendant as punishment for past conduct); Williams, 548 S.W.2d 
at 290 (noting that a factor bearing on the prejudicial nature of propensity evidence is 
“whether the jury knows or can fairly infer [that] the defendant was punished for his [or 
her] past criminal acts”); Rodriguez v. State, 245 P.3d 818, 826–27 (Wyo. 2010) (holding 
that trial court provided a well-reasoned analysis for admitting prior convictions where it 
stated, among other things, that “the previous acts resulted in convictions, so a jury should 
not be tempted to punish [Mr.] Rodriguez for having ‘escaped’ penalty in the past” 
(alteration in original)). 
All that is not to say that the State’s attempt to use evidence that did not result in 
conviction (i.e., uncharged or unproven allegations) automatically is a factor that weighs 
in favor of excluding evidence of the other sexually assaultive behavior.  We note only that 
the State, in informing the jury that the defendant’s prior conduct resulted in a conviction, 
 
than good.  He believes this occurred in his case because the plea transcript contained no 
information about his sentence, which allowed the jury to unduly speculate.  This argument 
makes too much of too little.  If Petitioner believed he was disadvantaged by the jury not 
being informed of the sentence he received, then he could have asked that it be so informed.  
We nevertheless offer no view concerning how a trial court should exercise its discretion 
when considering how much information the jury should be permitted to hear about a 
defendant’s other sexually assaultive behavior, which must be assessed on the facts of each 
case. 
34 
 
can lessen the fear that the jury will convict simply because the jury believes the defendant 
escaped punishment for the other sexually assaultive behavior. 
3. Factors concerning admissibility generally after the State has satisfied CJP 
§ 10-923(e)(1)–(4) 
 
i. need 
The parties both address “need” as a factor under § 10-923(e)(4).  Petitioner 
acknowledges that it is a relevant factor for courts to consider by advocating for the LeMay 
factors, but he does not discuss it further.  The State, also citing LeMay, argues that 
evidence of a defendant’s other sexually assaultive behavior need only be practically 
necessary to the State’s case to warrant admission.  This factor weighs in favor of 
admission, the State believes, when the victim’s testimony in the current case is the primary 
or only evidence of the underlying charge and the defendant challenges the victim’s 
credibility. 
We agree that the State’s need for this evidence is something a circuit court can 
consider, but it is a consideration for the court’s discretion regarding admissibility 
generally—not the balancing specifically performed under § 10-923(e)(4).  In other words, 
the State’s need for the evidence is not considered until the court has first concluded, in its 
consideration of § 10-923(e)(4), that the probative value of the evidence is not substantially 
outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.  Furthermore, the State’s need for evidence 
of a defendant’s other sexually assaultive behavior as part of its case-in-chief is a factor, 
like many others addressed herein, that can cut both ways—for or against the State.  As the 
State lacks other evidence to carry its burden at trial, the probative value of the other 
35 
 
sexually assaultive behavior increases, as does the State’s need for such evidence.24  In the 
same vein, the risk that a jury will use such evidence for an improper propensity purpose 
also increases.  Conversely, where the circuit court reasonably could conclude that the State 
has other viable means of proving the currently charged crime, the “need” factor may cut 
against the State and in favor of exclusion.  We recognize that this is a rather difficult factor 
to balance, but one that circuit courts diligently must consider—from both sides—before 
making an ultimate determination whether this factor weighs in favor of inclusion or 
exclusion.  
ii. clarity and manner 
The State addresses two more factors: the clarity with which it can prove the other 
sexually assaultive behavior and the manner in which it seeks to prove the other sexually 
assaultive behavior.  As the State sees the clarity component, conduct that has “resulted in 
a conviction [is] more probative than uncharged allegations of such conduct.”  Regarding 
manner, it argues that when the evidence is “limited to a few instances that can be presented 
without requiring a ‘mini trial,’” this factor weighs in favor of admission. 
The State’s argument as to clarity already is encapsulated by the requirement that 
the State prove by clear and convincing evidence the defendant’s involvement in the other 
sexually assaultive behavior under § 10-923(e)(3). 
 
24 Nothing we say should be read as permitting the State to use propensity evidence 
in lieu of its obligation to prove beyond a reasonable doubt a defendant’s guilt based on 
the evidence related to the offense currently charged. 
36 
 
With respect to “manner,” Maryland Rule 5-403 permits a trial court to exclude a 
piece of otherwise relevant evidence for a variety of reasons, not just unfair prejudice.  
Under that rule, the court also can consider whether the evidence would confuse the issues, 
mislead the jury, amount to an undue delay or waste of time, or represent cumulative 
evidence.  Md. Rule 5-403.  Arguing that a piece of evidence likely is to produce a “mini 
trial” is a hallmark invocation of confusing the issues or an undue delay.  See Lund v. 
Henderson, 807 F.3d 6, 11 (1st Cir. 2015) (affirming trial court’s decision to exclude prior 
complaint evidence against defendant-police officer because defendant would have 
challenged each complaint, resulting in a mini trial); United States v. Williams, 464 F.3d 
443, 448 (3d Cir. 2006) (affirming district court’s exclusion of witness’ prior conviction 
for murder because not probative as to truthfulness or untruthfulness and potential to cause 
an unnecessary mini trial); United States v. Fonseca, 435 F.3d 369, 376 (D.C. Cir. 2006) 
(calling a police officer to testify on a collateral issue would have caused a delay and a 
mini trial, both of which FRE 403 seeks to avoid).  For that reason, we agree that the 
manner of presentation of evidence of other sexually assaultive behavior may be 
appropriate for a circuit court to consider.  Like with “need,” however, we think 
consideration of “manner,” if raised by a party, is an argument better addressed when a 
circuit court exercises its discretion whether to admit the evidence only once the court has 
determined that the factors listed in (e)(1) through (4) have been satisfied. 
 
 
37 
 
C. 
The Motions Judge Did Not Abuse His Discretion When He Determined That The 
Danger Of Unfair Prejudice Did Not Substantially Outweigh The Probative Value 
Of Petitioner’s Prior Conviction, And Petitioner Waived Any Argument That The 
Circuit Court Sua Sponte Should Have Limited The Scope Of The State’s 
Evidence 
 
As previously stated, it is incumbent upon the parties to argue any factor they deem 
relevant to the inquiry under CJP § 10-923(e)(4).  Petitioner argues in this Court that his 
2010 conviction is both dissimilar to and more inflammatory than his assault on A.H.  But 
Petitioner failed to make any argument concerning inflammatory nature in the circuit court.  
Concerning subsection (e)(4), he argued only that the facts of his 2010 conviction were too 
dissimilar from his assault on A.H.25  Thus, Petitioner has forfeited any argument that the 
circuit court erred by improperly weighing the inflammatory factor, and we consider only 
Petitioner’s arguments regarding similarity.  See Md. Rule 8-131(a). 
 
25 Although Petitioner’s trial counsel noted that Petitioner’s prior conviction was 10 
years old, he did not argue that temporal proximity was a factor weighing in favor of 
exclusion under CJP § 10-923(e)(4).  At the motions hearing, trial counsel stated: 
 
But we are talking about an allegation from ten years prior of sexual assault 
on an adult.  The idea that this evidence could somehow be introduced as it 
relates to rebutting what is going to happen which is an attack on the victim’s 
credibility, the fact that [Petitioner] was convicted of sexually assaulting an 
adult has very little probative value, if any, I would suggest none, or as it 
relates to the allegations of sexual assault upon minor victim, which have to 
say, I don’t see even if the Court wanted to suggest or conclude that there 
was an opportunity to cross-examine, and there is nothing in the record that 
suggests that [Petitioner] had an opportunity to cross-examine any of these 
individuals. 
 
Rather, the thrust of trial counsel’s arguments went to confrontation under subsection (e)(2) 
and similarity under subsection (e)(4). 
38 
 
As to similarity, Petitioner highlights the following differences between the two 
cases: the insertion of foreign objects on one victim versus performing fellatio and 
anilingus on the other, without the use of foreign objects; adult victim versus minor victim; 
no familial relationship versus a familial relationship; unconsciousness of one victim 
versus consciousness of the other; and, if conscious, ability of adult victim to have legally 
consented to the sexual acts versus inability for the minor victim to consent to any sexual 
act.  The State, on the other hand, believes there are enough similarities between the two 
assaults.  It argues that both involved vulnerable male victims who were assaulted in the 
anal area. 
The standard of review in this case bears repeating: abuse of discretion.  To rule in 
Petitioner’s favor, we must be prepared to find that the motions judge’s decision was so far 
removed from any center mark imagined by this Court that it places that decision “beyond 
the fringe of what we deem minimally acceptable.”  Matthews, 479 Md. at 305.  We cannot 
say that occurred here.  As the Appellate Court noted, the motions judge focused on what 
he saw as the common denominator between the two assaults: consent, see Woodlin, 254 
Md. App. at 705–06, questioning whether it “matter[ed],” that one victim was adult, and 
one was a minor.  The motions judge considered each side’s arguments attempting to 
highlight the similarities or differences, ultimately concluding—in his discretion—that the 
two events were “consistent enough,” to find that the danger of unfair prejudice did not 
substantially outweigh the probative value of Petitioner’s 2010 conviction.  Armed with 
plausible interpretations supporting either side, we will not superimpose our judgment over 
the motions judge’s well-supported determination.  See Matthews, 479 Md. at 305.  In other 
39 
 
words, we cannot say that no reasonable person would have concluded as the motions judge 
did.  See Williams, 457 Md. at 563. 
Petitioner also asks this Court to address an argument that the Appellate Court 
determined was waived: whether the circuit court “nonetheless erred in admitting all the 
evidence concerning [the] past offense” and “not using its discretion to limit the admission 
to the minimal facts necessary to achieve the prosecution’s goal of bolstering [A.H.’s] 
credibility.”  We agree with the Appellate Court that this issue is not preserved for appellate 
review.  Woodlin, 254 Md. App. at 708–13.  Giving every benefit of the doubt to Petitioner, 
trial counsel knew as early as the October 2020 pre-trial conference that the State was 
seeking to introduce the entire 2010 plea transcript, testimony from Cpl. Creason, and a 
true test copy of Petitioner’s conviction, and the State provided the entire plea transcript to 
Petitioner on multiple occasions.  Petitioner did not object to the scope of the evidence at 
the motions hearing, the October 2020 conference, or at trial when the State officially 
introduced it.  To the contrary, he only ever argued at the motions hearing that the court 
should exclude all evidence of his 2010 conviction, and his objections were to the 
admissibility of the entirety of the evidence offered by the State, not specific portions.  
Petitioner’s decision not to ask at any point for the motions judge or the trial judge to limit 
the scope of the State’s evidence means that this issue was not preserved for appellate 
review.  See Md. Rule 8-131(a).  Indeed, after learning at the October 2020 pre-trial 
conference the exact scope of the evidence the State intended to introduce, trial counsel 
told the motions judge that he had no further questions and simply would object, when 
40 
 
appropriate, at trial.  Trial counsel’s objections at trial, as to this issue, only ever concerned 
what he believed was a confrontation issue under CJP § 10-923(e)(2).   
Thus, his argument that the circuit court had an independent duty to limit the scope 
of the State’s evidence is not preserved, and we see no basis to exercise our discretion to 
review it.26  See Conyers v. State, 367 Md. 571, 594 (2002) (describing appellate review 
pursuant to Rule 8-131(a) as an “exceptional circumstance” and “discretionary, not 
mandatory”). 
IV 
CONCLUSION 
The plain, unambiguous language of CJP § 10-923(e)(4) does not require circuit 
court judges to consider in every case any particular factor when balancing evidence of a 
defendant’s other sexually assaultive behavior against the danger of unfair prejudice, and 
we decline to impose such a requirement.  Nevertheless, as outlined above, there are 
various factors that a circuit court may consider during that balancing exercise, and it 
 
26 Although we are satisfied that basic waiver principles resolve this issue, we cannot 
ignore the possibility that Petitioner’s failure to make any such argument in the circuit court 
could have been a strategic trial decision.  Petitioner knew the jury was going to hear 
something about his prior conviction.  The only determination left in which he had any 
potential say was how many details about it would go before the jury.  Petitioner could have 
determined that, if the jury were bound to hear about his prior conviction, it was in his best 
interest that it hear everything, including the dissimilarities that provided a basis for arguing 
that the earlier incident was not relevant.  Absent the full details of his past criminal actions, 
the jury possibly could speculate about the specific conduct that formed the basis for that 
prior conviction, creating the potential that it would convict on propensity grounds.  We 
naturally cannot know whether this indeed was Petitioner’s reasoning for not advancing an 
argument to limit the scope of the State’s evidence.  But, if it is, he cannot have it both 
ways.  He cannot now claim error having had the benefit of testing what he thought was 
sound trial strategy—merely because that strategy did not pay off. 
41 
 
generally is incumbent on the parties to bring any factor they deem applicable to the circuit 
court’s attention.  Circuit courts must balance and weigh all appropriate factors—just as 
they would in any other case under Maryland Rule 5-403—before deciding whether the 
danger of unfair prejudice substantially outweighs the probative value of evidence of a 
defendant’s other sexually assaultive behavior.  If the circuit court determines that the State 
has satisfied § 10-923(e)(1)–(4), then—and only then—may the circuit court exercise 
discretion to admit or exclude the evidence in question. 
Here, the motions judge did not abuse his discretion in determining that the danger 
of unfair prejudice did not substantially outweigh the probative value of Petitioner’s 2010 
conviction.  The motions judge considered the parties’ arguments as to the similarity 
between the two acts—the only factor raised by Petitioner—and believed that a lack of 
consent from vulnerable male victims, who experienced an assault to their anal area, was 
enough of a similarity to outweigh the danger of unfair prejudice.  We cannot say that 
determination, after weighing evidence from both sides, constitutes an abuse of discretion.  
Petitioner also waived any argument that the circuit court sua sponte should have limited 
the scope of the State’s evidence.  Therefore, we affirm Petitioner’s conviction. 
 
JUDGMENT OF THE APPELLATE 
COURT OF MARYLAND AFFIRMED.  
COSTS TO BE PAID BY PETITIONER.