321 Md. 612, 583 A.2d 1056 (1991)). In this case, the State argues that the jury could have inferred from the evidence introduced at trial that the act underlying Mr. Wallace’s second-degree assault charge was an act distinct from the robbery of Mr. Womack. Simply put, the separate assault was never charged. But the indictment is ambiguous as to the particular act giving rise to the second- degree assault charge. And we see no curative instruction to the jury explaining “how the assault and robbery charges related to one another, how they differed, and what the jury needed to find to convict under both charges.” Morris, 192 Md.App. at 43, 993 A.2d 716 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Williams, 187 Md.App. at 477, 979 A.2d 184); see also Snowden, 321 Md. at 619, 583 A.2d 1056 (<HOLDING>); Thompson, 119 Md.App. at 611, 705 A.2d 322
holding that where the meaning of the jurys verdict was not clear in light of the trial courts jury instructions the court of appeals erred in directing entry of judgment for respondent the case should have been remanded to the trial judge who was in the best position to pass upon the question of a new trial in light of the evidence his charge to the jury and the jurys verdict holding that the trial judges misconduct at trial did not prejudice the defendant in light of the courts curative instructions recognizing that had the case before it been a jury trial it could have looked to the judges instructions in hope of illuminating the rationale behind the verdicts holding that it is presumed that the jury obeyed the trial courts instructions holding that a jury is presumed to follow a judges instructions