Chesley v. State
Decision Date | 09 April 1968 |
Docket Number | No. 157,157 |
Citation | Chesley v. State, 240 A.2d 342, 3 Md.App. 588 (Md. App. 1968) |
Parties | John W. CHESLEY v. STATE of Maryland. |
Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Harvey Lee Cohen, Baltimore, for appellant.
Alfred J. O'Ferrall, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., with whom were Francis B. Burch, Atty. Gen., Charles E. Moylan, Jr. and Barrett Freedlander, State's Atty. and Asst. State's Atty. for Baltimore City, on the brief for appellee.
Before MURPHY, C. J., and MORTON, ORTH and THOMPSON, JJ.
The appellant was found guilty in a trial by the court in the Criminal Court of Baltimore of the rape and robbery of Molly Manigold.1He was sentenced to imprisonment for the balance of his natural life on the rape conviction and to a term of 10 years on the robbery conviction to run concurrently with the life sentence.
On appeal the appellant contends:
I The lower court erred in denying ing his motion to dismiss the indictments.
II The evidence was not sufficient to sustain the convictions.
III He was denied due process of law by suppression of evidence by the State.
The appellant filed a motion to dismiss the indictments on the grounds that he was not afforded the benefit of counsel'when he was presented for indictment before the Grand Jury' and was 'denied his constitutional right to confront and cross-examine witness against him which Grand Jury heard'.The motion was denied.
In Watson v. Warden, 2 Md.App. 134, 233 A.2d 321we held that there was no denial of rights guaranteed by the 6th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States by the exclusion of an accused and his attorney from the proceedings of the grand jury leading to indictment.We cited Coblentz v. State, 164 Md. 558, pages 566-567, 166 A. 45, page 49, 88 A.L.R. 886, where the Court said:
We said in Watsonat page 140 of 2 Md.App.at page 325 of 233 A.2d:
We are not persuaded by the authorities relied on by the appellant to depart from our holding in Watson that neither the accused nor counsel representing him have any right to be present during the proceedings before the grand jury.2Because of the nature of the functions of the grand jury, the cases cited by the appellant in support of his contention are not in point and are not apposite by analogy.They conclude that assistance of counsel may, under certain circumstances, be necessary to assure certain rights of an accused, at a preliminary hearing or arraignment 3, at a lineup 4, at the obtaining of a confession 5, and at the trial 6.Nor do we construe Pointer v. State of Texas, 380 U.S. 400, 85 S.Ct. 1065, 13 L.Ed.2d 923, where the Court held that the right of the accused to confront the witnesses against him was denied where a transcript of testimony at a preliminary hearing, at which there was no opportunity for cross-examination, was admitted in evidence at the trial on the merits, to compel such confrontation of witnesses in grand jury proceedings.
The appellant also alleges that, because prior to conviction, an accused who is charged with an offense, the maximum punishment for which is capital, is not entitled to bail 'as a matter of law'(Md. Rules, 777 a), the action of the grand jury in indicting him deprived him of his liberty without due process of law.But the rule continues: 'In a capital case the accused may be admitted to bail in the discretion of the court'.We see no merit in this allegation.The question presented by a denial of bail in such case is one of the exercise of the discretionary power of the court and there is no allegation here that the discretion was abused.SeeFischer v. Ball, 212 Md. 517, 129 A.2d 822.
We find no error in the denial to dismiss the indictments.7
Molly Manigold testified that about 11:00 P.M. on the evening of September 23, 1966 while she was walking from her brother's house at 1010 Mosher Street to the house of another brotherat 1207 Winchester Street, 'somebody grabbed me around my neck * * * and pulled me backwards and twisted my neck and told me if I holler, say 'I kill you."She was able to see her assilant-'I'll never forget him'-and identified him as the appellant.She asked him why he was doing this to her, and he said, 'Shut up bitch', and hit her in her face with his fist.He dragged her down the alley and threw her down, 'beating my face from side to side'.He'straightened' her with his leg across her and had intercourse, tearing her clothes 'off her'.He said, 'it's women like you I like to hurt'.She was 'halfway out and he did what he wanted to do * * * He put his penis in me'.He asked her if she had any money and when she replied that she did he took 'about a dollar and something' from her pocket while he was still 'sitting on top' of her.He told her he was going to kill her and 'he started beating me in my face again and I could feel my face swelling up all over'.He finally permitted her to get up but had her arm twisted around her back.He pushed her in this manner to her brother's house and she'fell in the door', and hollered for help.She was then 'in shock' and 'all I know is waking up down at University Hospital, the doctors talking to me'.The victim's brother, Charles Mason, testified that he was sitting in his house when the 'outside door, slung open' and his sister hollered, 'Help'.He ran out the door and saw the appellant running 'eastward on Winchester towards the alley'.Mason ran after the appellant and caught him near the entrance to the alley.The appellant put his hand 'into his sweater' and Mason hit him, 'knocked him between the white fence and the brick wall'.He brought him back...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart 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

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

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

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

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

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Richardson v. State
...the demanded statements was admissible or useful in the appellant's defense, whether it was material to the issue of guilt, or whether it would have substantially affected the matter of punishment. 2 Applying the rationale of
Chesley v. State, supra, to the instant case, we hold that the appellant's contention that he was denied due process because the State had suppressed statements which he had previously given to the police is not available to him on his direct appeal in this case.statements. The appellant contends he was denied due process because of the failure of the State to produce his statements for his inspection prior to trial. This Court dealt with a situation similar to this contention in Chesley v. State, 3 Md.App. 588, 240 A.2d 342. In that case the appellant contended that after his trial was concluded, he discovered that the State had made a laboratory examination of his pants which had shown they were free of sperm. He claimed this fact was materialexamination of his pants which had shown they were free of sperm. He claimed this fact was material to the issue of his guilt on a rape charge and that it had been knowingly withheld from him by the State. In dismissing his contention, we said at 597, 240 A.2d at 347: 'The record before us is silent as to the examination of the pants. It does not show if, in fact, such an examination was made, or, assuming it was made, what it disclosed or whether the appellant had knowledge of it prior to... -
Moczygemba v. State
...v. Superior Court, 252 A.2d 300 (Del.S.Ct.1969); State v. Panagoulis, 253 Md. 699, 253 A.2d 877 (1969); State v. Salazar, 81 N.M. 512, 469 P.2d 157 (1970); State v. Morgan, 9 N.C.App. 624, 177 S.E.2d 457 (1970);
Chesley v. State, 3 Md.App. 588, 240 A.2d 342 (1968). An accused does not have the right to be confronted with and to cross-examine witnesses who appear before a grand jury investigating and considering matters in which the accused is... -
Rothe v. State
...Citing Wilson v. State, 8 Md. App. 653, 674, 262 A.2d 91 (1970). 7. Citing Scott v. State, 2 Md. App. 709, 713-715, 237 A.2d 61 (1968); Tillery v. State, 3 Md. App. 142, 148, 238 A.2d 125 (1968); Gunther v. State, supra; Hunt v. State, supra. 8. Citing Johnson v. State, 3 Md. App. 219, 222, 238 A.2d 295 (1968). 9. Citing Tucker v. State, 237 Md. 422, 424, 206 A.2d 691 (1965);
Chesley v. State, supra. 10. The395, 407, 287 A.2d 73 (1972). 2. Citing Bell v. State, 2 Md. App. 471, 472, 235 A.2d 307 (1967); Poff v. State, 3 Md. App. 289, 292-293, 239 A.2d 121 (1968); Chesley v. State, 3 Md. App. 588, 596, 240 A.2d 342 (1968); Eley v. State, 4 Md. App. 230, 234, 242 A.2d 175 (1968); Rasnick v. State, 7 Md. App. 564, 568, 256 A.2d 543 (1969); Lindsay v. State, 8 Md. App. 100, 103, 258 A.2d 760 (1969); Gardner v. State, 8 Md. App. 694, 700-701,... -
Grimm v. State
...L.Ed.2d 1323. At the very most, Dennis makes clear that it is only upon a showing of a 'particularized need' that an accused might be entitled in a proper case to such disclosure. See Wilson v. State, supra (Footnote 10), and
Chesley v. State, 8 Md.App. 588, 240 A.2d 342(Footnote 7). We think the trial judge was entirely correct when, in denying appellant's motion, he '* * * there is no showing in this case of any particularized need nor anything about this case that...