Opinion ID: 2557538
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Admission of Exculpatory Evidence

Text: The final argument raised by the Defendants is that the trial court erred in introducing evidence of (1) Longtin's exculpatory DNA results, and (2) the subsequent conviction of the perpetrator of the crime. The Court of Special Appeals rejected these claims, reasoning that they were not preserved for appeal: In the circuit court, appellants filed a motion in limine to prohibit introduction of the DNA evidence because it was not available when the district court commissioner independently determined that probable cause existed to arrest and hold Longtin. This motion was denied. When the evidence was later disclosed in testimony, appellants made no further objection. Under these circumstances the motion in limine will not preserve appellants' objection. Pulte Home Corp. [ v. Parex, Inc. ], 174 Md. App. [681,] 763 [923 A.2d 971, 1017, (2007)].    It would appear that the appellants' attack on the introduction of evidence of Oesby's arrest and conviction for Zinetti's murder was not preserved for the same reasons, discussed [above]. Longtin, 190 Md.App. at 134-35, 988 A.2d at 41-42. Alternatively, the Court of Special Appeals rejected these evidentiary claims on the merits. [30] Here, the Defendants make no argument that these issues were preserved for appellate review. Instead, they state that the preservation argument is simply without merit. The issues were preserved and the CSA rendered an opinion. The Defendants' reliance on the Court of Special Appeal's opinion is mystifying, given that the intermediate appellate court held, in the first instance, that the issues were not preserved. The Court of Special Appeals' alternative rejection on the merits does not remedy the Defendants' preservation problem. Given the Court's sound reasoning on the issue, and the Defendants' failure to present any argument in opposition, we hold that the evidentiary issues are not preserved.