Briley v. State
| Citation | 129 A.2d 689,212 Md. 445 |
| Decision Date | 06 March 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 107,107 |
| Parties | Kelly BRILEY v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Maryland |
Leonard S. Freedman, Baltimore (Michael F. Freedman, Baltimore, on the brief) for appellant.
Stedman Prescott, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen. for appellee.
Before BRUNE, C. J., and COLLINS, HENDERSON, HAMMOND and PRESCOTT, JJ.
Kelly Briley was indicted in the usual form for the murder of Jessie Mills, which occurred on January 21, 1956, in Baltimore City. He pleaded not guilty and was tried before Judge Joseph L. Carter and a jury. He was found guilty of murder in the first degree. A motion for a new trial filed before the Supreme Bench of Baltimore City was denied. He was sentenced to death by hanging and from this judgment he has appealed.
No motion for a directed verdict was made in the trial court at the end of the State's evidence, or at the conclusion of all the testimony taken; nor were there any objections or exceptions to the trial court's charge to the jury. We are requested, however, under the alleged authority of Sec. 700, Art. 27 of the Maryland Code 1951 and Rule 5A, Part Four, subd. I, of the Gen. Rules of Prac. and Proc. 1955, now Rule 738(a)(b), to review the evidence and determine whether it is sufficient to sustain a conviction of murder in the first degree.
Since the adoption of Article 15, Section 5, as an amendment to the Constitution of Maryland, we have had authority and the obligation, when the question is properly reserved, to decide the legal sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction in a criminal case. It is manifest from the constitutional amendment and the supplementary statute and the rule of court that appellate review is predicated upon the refusal of an instruction offered and a ruling thereon by the trial court. When the record discloses no such request for an instruction, there can be no review by this Court of the sufficiency of the evidence. Leet v. State, 203 Md. 285, 292, 100 A.2d 789, and the cases therein cited.
When the question is properly reserved and this Court is called upon to review the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction in a criminal case tried before a jury, we do not inquire into and measure the weight of the evidence to ascertain whether the State has proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, but determine if there be any relevant evidence given to the jury which would properly sustain a conviction. Shelton v. State, 198 Md. 405, 412, 84 A.2d 76; Auchincloss v. State, 200 Md. 310, 316, 89 A.2d 605; Yanch v. State, 201 Md. 296, 300, 93 A.2d 749.
As stated above, the question is not raised by the record for review by this Court,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hutchinson
...A.2d 774, (distinguishing Wolfe v. State, 218 Md. 449, 146 A.2d 856); Jackson v. Warden, 218 Md. 652, 655, 146 A.2d 438; Briley v. State, 212 Md. 445, 448, 129 A.2d 689; Schanker v. State, 208 Md. 15, 21, 116 A.2d 363; Heath v. State, 198 Md. 455, 464, 85 A.2d 43. See also Beard v. State, 2......
-
Ennis v. State
...of acquittal was made; hence we are not at liberty to pass upon the sufficiency of the evidence. Maryland Rule 755b; Briley v. State, 212 Md. 445, 129 A.2d 689." Id. at 229, 179 A.2d at In Lotharp v. State, 231 Md. 239, 189 A.2d 652 (1963), the appellant was convicted of a homicide by a jur......
-
Dimery v. State
...v. Warden, 218 Md. 652, 655, 146 A.2d 438 (1958), cert. denied, 359 U.S. 917, 79 S.Ct. 598, 3 L.Ed.2d 580 (1959); Briley v. State, 212 Md. 445, 448, 129 A.2d 689 (1957); Schanker v. State, 208 Md. 15, 21, 116 A.2d 363 (1955); and Heath v. State, 198 Md. 455, 464, 85 A.2d 43 (1951). To this ......
-
State v. Pagotto, 99
...it determines whether there was any relevant evidence considered by the jury which would sustain a conviction. See Briley v. State, 212 Md. 445, 129 A.2d 689 (1957); Clarke v. State, 238 Md. 11, 207 A.2d 456 (1965); Pressley v. State, 244 Md. 664, 224 A.2d 866 (1966); State v. Devers, 260 M......