Opinion ID: 6336151
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: standard of review

Text: A. Jury Instruction A circuit court has broad discretion when determining whether a jury instruction is warranted by the facts of the case. Carter v. State, 366 Md. 574, 584, 785 A.2d 348, 353 (2001). We accordingly review the decision not to provide a jury instruction for abuse of discretion. Cost v. State, 417 Md. 360, 368, 10 A.3d 184, 189 (2010). We assess whether a circuit court abused its discretion in denying a request for a particular jury instruction by determining “(1) whether the requested instruction was a correct statement of the law; (2) whether it was applicable under the facts of the case; and (3) whether it was fairly covered [elsewhere or] in the instructions actually given.” Stabb v. State, 423 Md. 454, 465, 31 A.3d 922, 929 (2011) (citations omitted); see also Md. Rule 4-325(c). Whether a jury instruction is a correct statement of law is subject to a de novo standard of review. SeleyRadtke v. Hosmane, 450 Md. 468, 482, 149 A.3d 573, 581 (2016). 20 B. Sufficiency of Evidence We review sufficiency of evidence by asking whether “any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. McGagh, 472 Md. 168, 194, 244 A.3d 1117, 1131–32 (2021) (citations omitted) (emphasis in original).