## Facts

- Deltavia Cure was tried in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City on robbery-related charges.
- Before trial, Cure sought to exclude a prior arson conviction from use for impeachment under Maryland Rule 5-609.
- The trial court ruled in limine that the State could use the arson conviction to impeach Cure if he testified.
- Cure testified and, on direct examination, disclosed the arson conviction to mitigate its impact.
- The jury convicted Cure; the intermediate appellate court affirmed, concluding Cure waived review by disclosing the conviction, and also finding no error in admitting it.
- The Court of Appeals of Maryland granted review to decide whether the direct disclosure waived appellate review and whether the arson conviction was admissible for impeachment.

## Issues

1. Whether a defendant who discloses a prior conviction on direct examination after an adverse in limine ruling “draws the sting” and thereby waives appellate review of that ruling.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion under Maryland Rule 5-609 by permitting impeachment with a prior arson conviction, including whether arson qualifies as an “infamous” crime and whether probative value outweighed unfair prejudice.

## Decision

- The court held that Cure did not necessarily waive appellate review by disclosing the conviction on direct examination after the adverse in limine ruling.
- The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that the arson conviction was admissible for impeachment under Rule 5-609.
- The court affirmed the judgment, leaving Cure’s convictions undisturbed.

## Legal Principles

- A defendant’s tactical decision to disclose a prior conviction on direct examination to mitigate impeachment does not, by itself, forfeit appellate review of a preserved, definitive in limine ruling admitting the conviction.
- A plurality view in an earlier case does not create a controlling, categorical waiver rule where it lacked majority support.
- Under Maryland Rule 5-609, qualifying prior convictions (including “infamous” crimes) may be used to impeach a testifying defendant if the court determines the probative value of the evidence outweighs the danger of unfair prejudice.
- Rule 5-609 rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion; where the trial court applies the correct framework and performs the required balancing, appellate courts generally will not disturb the ruling.
- Dissimilarity between the prior offense and the charged offenses reduces the risk of unfair propensity reasoning and may support admission for credibility purposes.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that a defendant who “draws the sting” by disclosing a prior conviction on direct examination does not automatically waive appellate review of an adverse in limine impeachment ruling, and it affirmed the admission of Cure’s prior arson conviction for impeachment because the trial court acted within its discretion under Rule 5-609.


Cure v. State, 26 A.3d 899 (Md. 2011)