Opinion ID: 6352556
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standard of review

Text: Appellate courts review a trial court’s decision concerning the admissibility of expert testimony under Maryland Rule 5-702 for abuse of discretion. See Rochkind, 471 Md. at 10. Under this standard, an appellate court does “not reverse simply because the … court would not have made the same ruling.” Devincentz v. State, 460 Md. 518, 550 (2018) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “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. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Williams v. State, 457 Md. 551, 563 (2018) (“An abuse of discretion occurs where no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the circuit court.”); Jenkins v. State, 375 Md. 284, 295-96 (2003) (“Abuse occurs when a trial judge exercises discretion in an arbitrary or capricious manner or when he or she acts beyond the letter or reason of the law.”). We also review a trial court’s ruling concerning admissibility of evidence under Maryland Rule 5-403 for abuse of discretion. Montague v. State, 471 Md. 657, 673-74 (2020). 18 In its opinion, the Court of Special Appeals rejected two arguments Matthews had raised regarding other evidentiary issues. Matthews did not cross-petition this Court to review those portions of the Court of Special Appeals opinion, and as such, they are not before us. 25