Brown v. State

Citation230 Md. 467,187 A.2d 683
Decision Date29 January 1963
Docket NumberNo. 150,150
PartiesRalph P. BROWN v. STATE of Maryland.
CourtMaryland Court of Appeals

Alexander Stark, Baltimore, for appellant.

Harrison M. Robertson, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen. (Thomas B. Finan, Atty. Gen., William J. O'Connell, State's Atty., and Charles E. Moylan, Jr., Asst. State's Atty., for Baltimore City, Baltimore, on the brief), for appellee.

Before HENDERSON, HAMMOND, PRESCOTT, HORNEY and MARBURY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Ralph P. Brown, the appellant, and LeRoy A. Barnes, were tried together on March 27, 1962, by the Criminal Court of Baltimore without a jury on three indictments charging robbery with a deadly weapon--No. 489 charging Barnes alone with robbing Frederick L. Harris; No. 490 naming Brown alone as the traverser and Edgar Otto as the victim; and No. 491 charging both Brown and Barnes with robbing Merrill Wood. A finding of guilt was made in each case. From his conviction in No. 490, Brown appeals, alleging as errors the failure of the trial court to sever the cases, the failure of the State to give him a lie detector test after he had consented to take it, the admission into evidence of a pre-trial identification of him by the robbery victim, and the failure of his trial counsel (who is not his counsel on appeal) to fully develop his case.

Not one of the grounds relied on was raised below, and none is available to the appellant here.

Maryland Rule 885 provides: 'This Court will not ordinarily decide any point or question which does not plainly appear by the record to have been tried and decided by the lower court.' There is no indication in the record of a motion by the appellant's trial counsel to sever the cases, nor is there anything to suggest that the trial court should have severed the cases on its own volition pursuant to Rule 735. The point, therefore, is not reviewable. Kares v. State, 215 Md. 396, 137 A.2d 712; Davis v. State, 189 Md. 269, 55 A.2d 102. Cf. Mylander v. Page, 162 Md. 255, 261, 159 A. 770.

Likewise, appellant's second and third contentions--that he was denied the right, he says was his, to take a lie detector test which he had agreed to take and that evidence of a pre-trial identification (a line-up where the appellant was identified when he appeared for the first time with the second group to be shown to the victim) was improperly admitted--cannot now be raised, there having been no objection made to the lower court on either point. Rules 725 b and 885. Martel v. State, 221 Md. 294, 157 A.2d 437; Briley v. State, 212 Md. 445, 129 A.2d 689. In any event, he does not point out how he was hurt by not being given the lie detector test.

Appellant's last contention is that he...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Ball v. State
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • September 1, 1996
    ...decision to forego cross-examination of witnesses does not amount to a denial of the right of confrontation. See Brown v. State, 230 Md. 467, 469-70, 187 A.2d 683, 684-85 (1963) (referring to failure to exercise right of cross-examination as a tactical decision). In addition, Appellant had ......
  • Brown v. State
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • November 13, 1964
    ...of any objection thereto by the appellant below, he has no standing to attack this procedure on appeal. Maryland Rule 885; Brown v. State, 230 Md. 467, 187 A.2d 683; Martel v. State, 221 Md. 294, 157 A.2d 437. An accused in a criminal proceeding who desires to preserve for review on appeal ......
  • Guerassio v. American Bankers Corp.
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • November 12, 1964
    ...judgment by raising here an issue that was not plainly disclosed as a genuine issue in the trial court. Maryland Rule 885; Brown v. State, 230 Md. 467, 187 A.2d 683; Martel v. State, 221 Md. 294, 157 A.2d 437; Wirth v. Wirth, 192 Md. 21, 63 A.2d 312. Counsel for the appellee stated in the a......
  • Evans v. State
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • November 13, 1964
    ...of an accomplice that incriminated the accused. The failure to summon witnesses may have been a matter of trial tactics. Brown v. State, 230 Md. 467, 187 A.2d 683. It may have been because the witnesses could not be found, or would not have helped the defense. In any event, we think it is c......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT