Opinion ID: 1908937
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Task of Defining Assertion Left to the Courts in Maryland

Text: In the testamentary capacity case of Waters v. Waters, 35 Md. 531 (1872), this Court considered whether certain letters were admissible to show the manner in which the testator was treated, in regard to matters of business ... by one well acquainted with him, in order to establish the letter-writer's opinions in regard to the sanity of the testator, and his competency to transact business. Id. at 543. In excluding the letters, the Court adopted the rule laid down in Wright v. Tatham, which had presented substantially the same factual scenario. Maryland Rules 5-801(a), 5-801(c), and 5-802 are identical to the federal counterparts, and, as discussed supra, many federal courts have rejected the Wright v. Tatham proposition that out-of-court words are hearsay when offered to prove facts that the declarant impliedly believed but did not intend to communicate. When the words of a Maryland rule and federal rule are the same or similar, often we look to interpretations of the federal rule in construing the Maryland Rule. See e.g., Ragland v. State, 385 Md. 706, 720, 870 A.2d 609, 617 (2005); Beatty v. Trailmaster, 330 Md. 726, 738 n. 8, 625 A.2d 1005, 1011 n. 8 (1993). Federal court interpretations of federal rules are considered persuasive, but are not binding on this Court in interpreting a Maryland rule. See e.g., Pinkney v. State, 350 Md. 201, 235, 711 A.2d 205, 222 (1998); State v. Matusky, 343 Md. 467, 490, 682 A.2d 694, 705 (1996); Walker v. State, 338 Md. 253, 260, 658 A.2d 239, 242 (1995). The Committee note to Md. Rule 5-801 departs substantially from its federal counterpart. Rather than restricting the definition of assertion, the note does not attempt to define `assertion,' a concept best left to development in the case law. It is clear that in adopting the Maryland Rule, this Court did not intend to adopt the federal Advisory Committee's view that nothing is an assertion unless intended to be one, but rather intended to leave to case law the viability of the rule of Wright v. Tatham.