did not move to strike the remaining part of the detective’s testimony and the State continued its examination. Subsequently, Detective Batavick testified that the carrier “provided [the police] with a name and address” to the phone number obtained from Craigslist. Defense counsel objected and the court identified the testimony as inadmissible hearsay, sustained defense counsel’s objection and struck the testimony. Appellant did not move to strike the testimony nor did he move for a mistrial. The court sua sponte provided the remedy of striking the inadmissible testimony. Moreover, at the close of all the evidence, the court instructed the jury that stricken testimony is not to be considered as evidence. See Klauenberg v. State, 355 Md. 528, 545-46, 735 A.2d 1061, 1070-71 (1999) (<HOLDING>). It is clear that appellant received all the
holding individual standing not available where inter alia there is no claim that plaintiff sustained a loss disproportionate to that sustained by the corporation holding that claims regarding the sufficiency of the evidence before the state grand jury may not be raised on habeas where a properly instructed petit jury heard all relevant evidence and convicted holding that the defendants right to presence was not violated where the defendant had been present in the courtroom while the venire members were questioned notwithstanding the fact that the defendant was absent later when his attorney made his strikes over the lunch hour because the defendant was present in the courtroom when the clerk gave the strikes effect by reading off the list of jurors who had not been stricken holding that there was no error where appellants objections were sustained testimony stricken and finding relevant the fact the court instructed the jury to disregard stricken evidence holding that a mistrial was not required after a police officer testified that he had once chased the defendant after the defendant had fired a gun where the testimony was a logical response to the prosecutors questions the statement was not made maliciously the evidence against the defendant was great and the jury was instructed to disregard the testimony