Bennett v. State

Decision Date06 February 1963
Docket NumberNo. 165,165
Citation230 Md. 562,188 A.2d 142
PartiesGarnette Mae BENNETT v. STATE of Maryland.
CourtMaryland Court of Appeals

John C. Sullivan, Cumberland, for appellant.

Robert C. Murphy, Deputy Atty. Gen. (Thomas B. Finan, Atty. Gen., Baltimore, and James S. Getty, States Atty., for Allegany Co., Cumberland, on the brief), for appellee.

Before BRUNE, C. J., and HENDERSON, HAMMOND, HORNEY and SYBERT, JJ.

HORNEY, Judge.

Challenging the correctness of the instructions to the jury with respect to the law of self-defense, the defendant(Garnette Mae Bennett) has appealed from the judgment entered on the verdict of guilty of murder in the first degree without capital punishment.

The defendant shot and killed her husband with a shotgun in the midmorning of January 31, 1962.She did not deny the shooting, but claimed that it was done in self-defense.The victim and the defendant had married and lived together for nearly twenty years, and had had four children--a daughter who lived away from home and three sons who lived with their parents.But the marriage had been a turbulent one in that it was fraught with frequent arguments and bickerings; beatings of the wife by the husband; and at least one act of infidelity on the part of the wife.

Early in January of 1962 the couple agreed to separate, he to move out of the marital abode: she to remain therein with the teenage boys.But after the expiration of a fortnight the husband moved back in with his family.As a result, the strained relations between them became even more intensified, and the wife, several days before the homicide, filed a bill for an absolute divorce and a preliminary order to require the husband to leave the home forthwith.When the husband learned of these proceedings, he became enraged and, on both of the two days before the shooting, threatened to take custody of the children and kill his wife.Whereupon she asked two of her sons to show her how to load and handle the gun (ostensibly for the purpose of shooting rats) and subsequently purchased shells for it.

When the husband came home from work at the usual time (about 7:20 a. m.) on the day of the homicide, he went to one of the bedrooms and while he was gone, the wife loaded the shotgun but left it in the gun rack in the kitchen.After the children went off to school, the husband, following a brief argument, went out to purchase whiskey, and, upon his return, he resumed the argument concerning the divorce and custody of the children, but he did not then threaten to kill his wife as he had done on the two preceding days.He cursed her, however, and walked out of the kitchen momentarily into the hallway.While he was out of her presence, the wife took the loaded gun out of the rack and held it by her side where she was standing behind the kitchen table.When the husband returned to the kitchen, he had his jacket over his left arm and a large hunting knife in his right hand.According to the wife, he had a hateful look on his face, and, because she was afraid that he would lunge at her or get her off guard and throw the knife at her, she pointed the gun toward him and pulled the trigger.The discharge struck the husband in the chest.He staggered forward and fell faceward on a chair.And when the wife came to his side he was dead.

In a statement given by the defendant to the investigating officers, the defendant, in reply to a question as to how her husband was dressed at the time of the shooting, in addition to informing them that he had the jacket over his arm and the knife in his hand, further stated: 'I already had the gun loaded and he just stopped and stared at me, and I pointed the gun toward him and shot and he yelled 'Oh, Garnette' or 'No, Garnett,' and then he staggered toward me and fell against the chairs at the table.'The defendant further admitted that she had discarded one of the two shells purchased by flushing it down the toilet.The State also produced photographs showing the position of the hunting knife partially covered by the jacket on the floor inside the kitchen door.

There was also other evidence on behalf of the defendant to the effect that the deceased, who often drank to excess, had bruised the defendant about the arms and body on several occasions; that he had beaten her from time to time throughout the marriage; that on one occasion he had held a knife to her throat and tried to kill her; that he had been heard to say on more than one occasion that he had cut her throat once and would do it again; and that, within the last two days prior to his death, the deceased had made repeated statements to others that he hated the defendant and would like to cut her heart out and watch it bleed.

At the close of the evidence, the defendant asked the trial court, in four separate written requests, to instruct the jury on the law of self-defense.In the first proposed instruction there was a request that the court advise the jury that if it found the defendant had reasonable grounds to believe, and did in fact believe, that she was in imminent danger of suffering serious injury, or death, at the hands of the deceased at the time she shot and killed him, and further found that any reasonable and prudent person in a similar situation and under like circumstances would have so believed, then the defendant was entitled to be acquitted.The second request sought an instruction to the effect that if the defendant had reasonable grounds to believe that her husband intended to kill her or to do her serious bodily injury, then she had a right under the circumstances to arm herself in anticipation of an assault.The third request was for an instruction that the jury be informed that when peril or danger exists a person has a right to defend and protect himself and that, when the peril is imminent, he who is assaulted need not retreat but may stand his ground.And the fourth request asked that the jury be told that it is not necessary that the danger be actual or real or about to transpire but that one may act in self-defense on appearance alone.

The trial court instructed the jury generally as to the law of homicide and the defenses thereto, and, in so doing, the court granted the first requested instruction, by including it in its written charge to the jury.Likewise, the substance of the third and fourth...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
59 cases
  • Wilkerson v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • February 10, 2020
    ...responded, "Nothing else, Your Honor." Appellant argues that he "substantially complied" with Rule 4-325(e). Substantial compliance, as opposed to strict compliance, preserves an issue for appellate review. Bennett v. State, 230 Md. 562 (1963). Bennett set out several conditions necessary toestablish substantial compliance with Rule 4-325(e): "[1] there must be an objection to the instruction; [2] the objection must appear on the record; [3] the objection must be accompanied by aYour Honor." Appellant argues that he "substantially complied" with Rule 4-325(e). Substantial compliance, as opposed to strict compliance, preserves an issue for appellate review. Bennett v. State, 230 Md. 562 (1963). Bennett set out several conditions necessary toestablish substantial compliance with Rule 4-325(e): "[1] there must be an objection to the instruction; [2] the objection must appear on the record; [3] the objection must be accompanied by a definite statementobjection is apparent from the record[;] and [4] the circumstances must be such that a renewal of the objection after the court instructs the jury would be futile or useless." Gore v. State, 309 Md. 203, 209 (1987) (citing Bennett v. State, 230 Md. at 568). The purpose underlying the Rule is to give the trial court an opportunity to correct the instruction if it deems correction necessary. Bowman v. State, 337 Md. 65, 69 (1994). Appellant did not substantially comply...
  • Turkot v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • June 22, 2017
    ...did not state the grounds for his objection, he did not preserve his objection to the instructions. Md. Rule 4-325(e); see Stabb v. State, 423 Md. 454, 464-65 (2011). Citing Gore v. State, 309 Md. 203 (1987), and Bennett v. State, 230 Md. 562 (1963), Turkot claims to have substantially complied with Rule 4-325(e). We reject that claim. To show substantial compliance with Rule 4-325(e), a party must meet the following requirements:[T]here must be an objection to...
  • Vernon v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • June 02, 1971
    ...JURY RETIRES (emphasis added) to consider its verdict make such objection stating distinctly the portion, or omission, or failure to instruct to which he objects and the ground of his objection.' In Bennett v. State, 230 Md. 562, at page 568, 188 A.2d 142, at page 144, the Court of Appeals 'The purpose of Maryland Rule 756 f-which requires that objections to instructions shall be made before the jury retires to consider its verdict-is to give the trial court an opportunity to amplify...
  • Iozzi v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • November 18, 1968
    ...not assign as of right an error unless (1) the particular portion of the instruction given was distinctly objected to before the jury retired to consider its verdict and (2) the grounds of objection were stated at that time. See Bennett v. State, 230 Md. 562, 188 A.2d 142. As the appellant did neither, he may not assign the alleged error as of right and we do not consider it. And we will not take cognizance of the alleged error, as suggested by the appellant; we do not find it to be...
  • Get Started for Free