In Carter v. State, 374 Md. 693, 824 A.2d 123 (2003), the Court of Appeals set forth the proper procedure to follow when a defendant is charged with the crime of possession of a regulated firearm by a person with a prior conviction of a crime of violence. The Court explained how to balance the need for evidence of the prior conviction with the potential prejudicial effect of this evidence coming in front of the jury. Id. at 716-18. In Carter, the defendant requested that the trial court bifurcate the elements of the criminal in possession charge, with the jury making a finding only as to whether the defendant had possessed a firearm. Id. at 701, 706. The trial court denied that request, and the Court of Appeals upheld that ruling. Id. at 701, 704. The Court held that "the proper course is to require a trial judge, when the defendant elects a jury trial, to allow the State to present evidence of all elements of a criminal-in-possession charge." Id. at 715. In Carter v. State, after the trial court rejected the defense request to bifurcate the elements of the offense, the defense offered to stipulate to the previous conviction element of the offense. Id. at 702. The State, however, refused to stipulate, and the court allowed the State to introduce evidence that Carter previously had pled guilty to the charge of robbery with a deadly weapon. Id. The Court of Appeals reversed, noting that in a felon in possession of a firearm case, where a defendant offers "'to admit that the prior-conviction element was satisfied,'" that is "'conclusive evidence of that element,'" and "the name of the prior offense 'addresses no detail in the definition of the prior-conviction element that would not have been covered by the stipulation or admission.'" Id. at 717 (quoting Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172, 186, 117 S. Ct. 644, 136 L. Ed. 2d 574 (1997)). The Court held: When the defendant admits or the parties stipulate to the previous-conviction element of a charge under P.S. 5-133(c), the trial judge should inform the jury that the defendant admits that he or she has been convicted of a crime for which he or she is prohibited from possessing a regulated firearm under the law. The judge should not describe the previous conviction with any more particularity or by using the categories of crimes under P.S. 5-133(b), (c) (such as "crime of violence" or "felony"). (Carter, 374 Md. at 722.)