Opinion ID: 2332966
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Court of Special Appeals' Ruling

Text: On appeal, petitioner presented several questions for review to the Court of Special Appeals, only one of those questions is now involved in the case sub judice. Petitioner asked the intermediate appellate court, [d]id the State fail to sustain its burden of proving at the motion to suppress hearing that the appellant's detention was constitutional? Southern v. State, 140 Md.App. 495, 499, 780 A.2d 1228, 1230 (2001). The Court of Special Appeals held that the trial court erred in failing to rule on the issue of the propriety of the initial stop of petitioner and remanded for the purposes of such a ruling, noting that in its brief to that court the State admit[ted] that `virtually no evidence was presented at the suppression hearing regarding the circumstances of [petitioner's] initial stop.' Id. at 504, 780 A.2d at 1234. Then, the Court of Special Appeals stated in its opinion the well settled rule that: The State bears the ultimate burden of proving that evidence seized without a warrant should not be suppressed. Nevertheless, it is `always the burden of the defense to raise the issue of unlawful search and seizure....' The failure to raise a suppression issue before the hearing court amounts to a waiver to seek relief upon appellate review. Moreover, the motion to suppress must be presented with particularity in order to preserve an objection. Id. at 505, 780 A.2d at 1234 (citations omitted); see Carter v. State, 367 Md. 447, 788 A.2d 646 (2002). Before the Court of Special Appeals, the State contended that petitioner had failed to properly challenge the propriety of the initial stop in his motion to suppress. The Court of Special Appeals held that at the suppression hearing defense counsel's comments were sufficient to articulate[ ] his challenge to the initial stop, and because the suppression court had not ruled on the propriety of the initial stop and instead focused on events surrounding the show-up procedure, the Court of Special Appeals ordered a limited remand pursuant to Maryland Rule 8-604(d)(1) [3] so that the court may rule on the propriety of the initial stop. Southern, 140 Md.App. at 505-07, 780 A.2d at 1234-35. The Court of Special Appeals also opined on whether the State was entitled to introduce new evidence on remand and held that the trial court on remand could hear additional evidence concerning the propriety of the initial stop. Id. at 513, 780 A.2d at 1239. The correctness of the Court of Special Appeals's holding that would allow the State to reopen the suppression proceeding and to present additional evidence on the initial stop, is the issue presented for our resolution.