Cromartie v. State

Summary

The Court affirmed the conviction, holding that any error in permitting the State to designate a detective as its representative under Maryland Rule 5‑615(b)(2) was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the appellant failed to preserve a claim that the detective’s identification testimony violated Rule 5‑701. Both issues were resolved on harmless‑error and preservation grounds, leaving the circuit court’s judgment intact.