Allison, Randy Scott v. State

Circuit Court for Allegany County
Case No. C-01-CR-24-000597
This is a per curiam opinion. Under Rule 1-104, the opinion is not precedent within the
rule of stare decisis nor may it be cited as persuasive authority.
UNREPORTED
IN THE APPELLATE COURT
OF MARYLAND
No. 1943
September Term, 2025
______________________________________
RANDY SCOTT ALLISON
v.
STATE OF MARYLAND
______________________________________
Graeff,
Ripken,
Eyler, Deborah S.
(Senior Judge, Specially Assigned),
JJ.
______________________________________
PER CURIAM
______________________________________
Filed: October 16, 2026

‒Unreported Opinion‒
Following a jury trial in the Circuit Court for Allegany County, Randy Scott Allison,
appellant, was convicted of distribution of a controlled dangerous substance (CDS),
possession with intent to distribute CDS, and possession of CDS. He raises a single issue
on appeal: whether the trial court abused its discretion in admitting video tapes of the
alleged drug transaction between himself and a confidential informant because they were
not properly authenticated. For the reasons that follow, we shall affirm.
At trial, the State sought to admit video recordings of a hand-to-hand drug
transaction between appellant and a confidential informant in the parking lot of a Love’s
Truck Stop. Trooper Justin Mallow testified that he had provided the informant with two
cameras to record the encounter, one mounted on his car windshield and one on a cell
phone. Neither camera could be turned on or off by the informant. Trooper Mallow was
in a separate car in the parking lot and testified that after he turned the cameras on, he
watched a live video feed of the entire transaction that was being recorded on one of the
cameras.
After the drug buy concluded, Trooper Mallow took the recording equipment from
the cameras, downloaded the SD cards, and stored their contents on a secure Google drive
that only people in his unit could access. He also reviewed the entirety of the video footage
and confirmed that it was a true and accurate version of what he had observed on the day
of the incident and that it had not been altered in any way. In addition to watching the live
video feed, Trooper Mallow also took pictures of appellant walking toward the informant’s
car with what appeared to be cocaine in his hand, getting into appellant’s car, and then
exiting appellant’s car with what appeared to be cash in his hand.

‒Unreported Opinion‒
2
On appeal, appellant contends that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting
the video recordings of the drug transaction because they were not properly authenticated
under Md. Rule 5-901. 	Specifically, he 	asserts that, without 	testimony from the
confidential informant, Trooper Mallow did not have sufficient personal knowledge of the
events to authenticate the videos, because he “did not have actual knowledge of what
transpired in real life, only what he saw on the video tape[.]” However, appellant did not
raise this contention in the circuit court. 	Defense counsel initially stated that he was
objecting because Trooper Mallow’s police report had not mentioned him viewing the
video in real time, and therefore that his testimony in that regard was a “very convenient”
way for the State to avoid calling the confidential informant to testify. The State then began
to make an argument regarding authentication. However, defense counsel interjected and
specifically informed the court that appellant was not objecting on the grounds that the
videos were improperly authenticated. Rather, counsel indicated that he was challenging
Trooper Mallow’s credibility because he was “only telling us now that [the videos were] a
fair and accurate representation of what happened on that day.”
Maryland’s appellate courts ordinarily will not consider “any issue ‘unless it plainly
appears by the record to have been raised in or decided by the trial court.’” King v. State,
434 Md. 472, 479 (2013) (quoting Md. Rule 8-131(a)). 	And it is generally “well-settled
that when specific grounds are given at trial for an objection, the party objecting will be
held to those grounds and ordinarily waives any grounds not specified that are later raised
on appeal.” Klauenberg v. State, 355 Md. 528, 541 (1999); see also Gutierrez v. State, 423
Md. 476, 488 (2011) (reiterating that “when an objector sets forth the specific grounds for

‒Unreported Opinion‒
3
his objection . . . the objector will be bound by those grounds and will ordinarily be deemed
to have waived other grounds not specified”) (quotation marks and citation omitted).
Moreover, “[a] party must bring his argument to the attention of the trial court with enough
particularity that the court is aware first, that there is an issue before it, and secondly, what
the parameters of the issue are.” Harmony v. State, 88 Md. App. 306, 317 (1991). Here,
appellant not only failed to challenge the authenticity of the video recordings in the circuit
court, but also he waived the issue by specifically telling the court that he was objecting to
the admission of the videos on different grounds. Consequently, appellant’s claim is not
preserved for appellate review.
Acknowledging that we might find his argument to be unpreserved, appellant
alternatively asked us to engage in plain error review of this issue. 	Although this Court
has discretion to review unpreserved errors pursuant to Maryland Rule 8-131(a), the
Supreme Court of Maryland has emphasized that appellate courts should “rarely exercise”
that discretion because “considerations of both fairness and judicial efficiency ordinarily
require that all challenges that a party desires to make to a trial court’s ruling, action, or
conduct be presented in the first instance to the trial court[.]” Ray v. State, 435 Md. 1, 23
(2013) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Therefore, plain error review “is reserved
for those errors that are compelling, extraordinary, exceptional or fundamental to assure
the defendant of a fair trial.” 	Savoy v. State, 218 Md. App. 130, 145 (2014) (quotation
marks and citation omitted). 	Under the circumstances presented, we decline to overlook
the lack of preservation and thus do not exercise our discretion to engage in plain error
review of this issue. 	See Morris v. State, 153 Md. App. 480, 506-07 (2003) (noting that

‒Unreported Opinion‒
4
the five words, “[w]e decline to do so[,]” are “all that need be said, for the exercise of our
unfettered discretion in not taking notice of plain error requires neither justification nor
explanation” (emphasis omitted)). Consequently, we shall affirm the judgments. 1
JUDGMENTS 	OF 	THE 	CIRCUIT
COURT FOR ALLEGANY COUNTY
AFFIRMED. COSTS TO BE PAID BY
APPELLANT.
1 We note that even if the issue had been preserved appellant’s claim lacks merit as
Trooper Mallow’s testimony was sufficient to authenticate the videos under either the
pictorial testimony method or the circumstantial evidence method.