News & Insights

Appellate Court of Maryland Weighs in on Adoptive Admissions

May 18, 2026

By: Patrick W. Daley

     In Thomas v. State of Maryland, Case No. 1530, 2026 Md. App. LEXIS 515 (Md. App. May 1, 2026), the Appellate Court of Maryland provided guidance on when a potentially adoptive admission could be presented to a jury.  Although the decision in Thomas was in the context of a criminal case and much of the opinion addressed search warrants and other criminal law issues, the Appellate Court’s decision regarding adoptive admissions likely will be relevant in commercial and other civil cases as well.  

     The Appellate Court of Maryland explained that an adoptive admission “may be implied through the affirmative conduct or, in the case of ‘tacit admissions,’ the silence or inaction of a party.”  “A tacit admission occurs when one remains silent in the face of accusations that, if untrue, would naturally rouse the accused to speak in his or her defense.”  In Maryland, a party may be found to have adopted the statement of another person as a tacit admission if “(1) the party heard and understood the statement; (2) at the time, the party had the opportunity to respond; and (3) under the circumstances, a reasonable person in the party’s position who disagreed with the statement would have voiced that disagreement.”  When deciding whether to admit an adopted statement, “[T]he judge must make a preliminary determination whether a jury could reasonably conclude that the defendant unambiguously adopted another person’s incriminating statement.  If the judge answers the question in the affirmative and admits the evidence, then the jury’s function is to decide whether it should reach the conclusion which the judge has held that it may reach, namely that there was unambiguous assent.” (citation omitted; emphasis added by original court).

     In Thomas, the appellant was convicted of a murder that occurred on May 1, 2020.  Part of the evidence that was presented to the jury was the following text message exchange between the appellant and his mother on May 7, 2020:

     [Mother at 6:38 pm]:  You will always be family but you acted very childish right now and you’re not thinking right now and nobody told you to kill that boy.

     [Appellant at 6:40 pm]:  I am not your family they are

     [Appellant at 6:40 pm]:  I been didn’t have any family

     [Appellant at 6:42 pm]:  U just like the rest of your family fake as shit

(emphasis added by court).

     The Appellate Court first concluded that the statement at issue constituted hearsay under Maryland Rule 5-801.  Once that determination was made, the court then proceeded to determine whether the statement could be admitted into evidence under one of the exceptions.  To this end, the court found that there “was sufficient evidence from which the jury could reasonably conclude that the appellant manifested an adoption or belief in the truth of his mother’s implied statement that he ‘kill[ed] that boy.’”  The court noted that the appellant responded to the accusatory text message “nearly immediate[ly]” and his response focused on the other part of the text message (i.e., the family relationship).  The court explained that “[s]ince he responded to one part of the message, a jury could reasonably infer that he read the entire message, including the accusatory statement, and had the opportunity to respond to it.”  The court further explained that “based on the portion he chose to respond to and the gravity of the subject matter, a jury could reasonably conclude that someone in the appellant’s situation would have expressed disagreement with the accusation.”  

     In reaching its conclusion, the court distinguished two cases cited by the appellant.  One of those cases (from California) found there was no adoptive admission in part because there was no evidence that the individual in that case read or responded to the last text message that accused him of committing robberies, which contrasts with the facts of Thomas.  In the other case (from Washington state), the court found that the individual “deflected” rather than “acquiesced” to the accusatory statement, which contrasts with the case in Thomas, as deflection is not sufficient to constitute adoption or acquiescence.

     The court’s decision in Thomas concerning adoptive admissions is significant in a variety of respects, including that the analysis may be applied in commercial/civil contexts.  For example, in a dispute between business partners, the partners may have exchanged text/email messages about money transfers.  Similarly, in the construction context, contractors may dispute the scope of work or whether errors were made performing the scope of work and they may likely will have exchanged text/email messages regarding the work.  Also by way of example, in the employment context, supervisors and employees may have exchanged emails/text messages regarding work performance.  Such electronic conversations often include accusations, some explicit, others implied.  Importantly, they often include partial responses and, as the court in Thomas illustrated, silence in response to certain allegations could become material later during litigation.  

     To illustrate this concept further, take, for example, a dispute between business partners and, during discovery, one of the owners discovers the following text/email message exchange between the other owner and his daughter (and the one owner suspects the father and daughter co-own a business that competes with the business he co-owns with the father):  [Daughter]:  Are you and mom going to watch the kids tomorrow when John and I go out?  Also, it looks like we have secured three of the five projects you told me about, but I will need your help to secure the other two.  [Father]:  Yes, mom and I will be there.”  This text/email message exchange could potentially be admitted into evidence in a dispute between the two business owners and the silence in response to diverting corporate opportunities could potentially be deemed an adoptive admission.

     The court’s decision in Thomas is significant not only in terms of trial tactics and strategies.  While people often ignore accusations/comments to avoid confrontation or escalation, silence is not always neutral and individuals should be mindful that timing and partial responses to certain messages could be weaponized later in litigation as an adoptive admission.  To this end, counsel may have a role to play in crafting appropriate responses to potentially adverse parties or even third parties when there is a potential for litigation later.  Parties and practitioners also should be mindful that the law governing adoptive admissions may vary by jurisdiction.