Crawford v. State

Decision Date01 May 1963
Docket NumberNo. 209,209
PartiesVernon CRAWFORD v. STATE of Maryland.
CourtMaryland Court of Appeals

Albert A. Levin, Baltimore, for appellant.

Joseph S. Kaufman, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen. (Thomas B. Finan, Atty. Gen., William J. O'Dennell, State's Atty., and John Paul Rogers, Asst. State's Atty. for Baltimore City, Baltimore, on the brief), for appellee.

Before BRUNE, C. J., and PRESCOTT, HORNEY, MARBURY and SYBERT, JJ.

BRUNE, Chief Judge.

The defendant-appellant, Crawford, was tried in the Criminal Court of Baltimore before the court, sitting without a jury, on a charge of murder, was convicted of manslaughter and was sentenced to eight years' imprisonment. His defense was that he was defending himself and his home against an attack by the decedent Bobbie Ferrell, who was seeking to force his way into the appellant's home to beat and rob him. He admitted having fred the fatal shot, but claimed that he intended only to shoot the intruder in the hand and that shooting him in the head was accidental. The trial judge believed at least most of the essentials of the defendant's statements, but found that he had used excessive force in resisting the intrusion and for that reason found him guilty of manslaughter. The defendant appeals.

The appellant was a forty-two year old man who had suffered from ulcers and nervous disorders, and was on relief for disability. He lived in a first floor front room at 16 North Pearl Street, in Baltimore, and for a week or two before the shooting had shared his quarters with a man named William Robinson. No one else lived in the building. There was a front outside door which opened into a vestibule, and there was an inner door between the vestibule and a long hallway. This inner door could be secured by a spring lock, which seems to have been the only lock protecting the appellant's room. One of four panes of glass in the upper portion of this door had been broken and had been replaced by a piece of masonite nailed to the inside of the door. The appellant's room opened off the hallway just inside this inner door.

The deceased, Bobbie, Ferrell, his brother Lee, and one Harold Austin (known as 'Slim'), and probably others, had been in the habit of 'hanging around' the appellant's room or the front of the house where he lived. Bobbie Ferrell, according to the death certificate, was twenty-three years old and the other two named above were near his age. The exact state of relations between these boys and the appellant, Crawford, is by no means clear. It seems that they had gone into Crawford's room pretty much whenever they pleased and that if they had ever been welcome, they no longer were so on March 12, 1962, the day when the shooting here involved occurred. On that very day Crawford had complained about them to the police and the police had visited his home at some time during the morning, but found none of the boys there at the time.

The appellant stated that Bobbie Ferrell and Austin had come to his room shortly after the police left, that Ferrell accused the appellant of being a 'police sintcher', that Ferrell hit him in the face and charged him with trying to get Ferrell locked up for stealing, that Ferrell asked him for money and Ferrell and Austin left when the appellant said that the had none, but would have some later in the day.

That day the appellant was to receive his welfare check by mail. He stated that in order to keep it away from Ferrell and Austin, he went out on the street and met the postman about a block from his home, got his welfare check, cashed it at a nearby bar, and left $45.00 of the proceeds with a neighbor for safekeeping. He then met the police officers who had visited his home earlier that day and told them that the boys had come to his home and demanded money. They told him to call the police if the boys returned.

When he met the officers the appellant was on his way to a pawnshop. There he redeemed a shotgun which he had pawned about a year before, and he took it home 'to keep it there to scare them away.' According to the appellant, Ferrell and Austin soon came back to his room and Ferrell picked up the shotgun from a bed, looked for shells, and said that if he found them he would use the gun. He did not find any; but again according to the appellant, Austin, with a knife in his hand, threw an arm around the appellant's neck, and Austin and Ferrell proceeded to rifle the appellant's pockets and took about $7.00 from him. The appellant's testimony is confirmed to some extent by Robinson, who was present at the time of this visit, but Robinson's testimony is somewhat confused. A third man, identified only by the name Thomas, was reportedly present at this second visit of Ferrell and Austin and later (at the time of the shooting), but he did not testify. Robinson confirmed the appellant's statements that Ferrell and Austin had visited the appellant's room before the appellant got his check and redeemed the gun. He also confirmed Crawford's statement that they returned after Crawford had cashed his check and brought back the gun the that they demanded money.

There are some differences between the appellant's testimony and Robinson's as to what was said at the time of Ferrell's and Austin's visits, and Robinson states (the appellant does not) that Lee Ferrell was also present. Robinson confirms the appellant's statements that Ferrell demanded money and said that they were coming back to get it, and he indicates that they knew that the appellant had received or was to receive his relief check that day. Robinson's testimony does not confirm (and Austin's testimony contradicts) the appellant's testimony that Ferrell and Austin robbed him at knife point. (Austin, at the time of Crawford's trial, was held on a charge of assault with intent to rob Crawford. We are not informed of the outcome of that case.) Robinson did, however, state that Ferrell's parting remark, after the appellant had told him and Austin to leave, was 'We're going out, but you better damn sight have the money when we get back.'

The appellant testified that Ferrell and Austin soon returned, Ferrell going to the front door and Austin to the rear door of the house. He said (partly in a statement made to the police shortly after his arrest, which was admitted in evidence without objection, and which he largely reaffirmed in his testimony) that he called to Robinson and Thomas to get the police but that they and he would not go out of the house for fear that they would be 'jumped' by Ferrell or Austin. He testified that Ferrell entered the vestibule and was trying to get through the inner door, which the appellant had locked with the spring lock after Ferrell and Austin had left. The appellant picked up his gun and loaded it and went into the front hall just inside this inner door. He could see Ferrell. Ferrell, finding the inner door locked, kicked at the bottom of it and said to appellant, 'I'm coming in to kick your ass.' Appellant, holding the door with his feet, warned Ferrell to stay out and told him that he had the gun, but (according to the appellant) Ferrell said he did not care about the gun. Ferrell then knocked loose the piece of masonite and reached inside to unlock the door, and as he did so, appellant backed away from the door and fired the gun killing Ferrell who was hit in the side of the face with the shotgun blast. The appellant said he backed away from the door because he 'was scared' and Ferrell 'was coming right in on me.' He said he did not 'aim for the head,' that instead he fired at Ferrell's hand but the gun jerked up as he fired. He said that he did intend 'for the gun to go off because the boys made me angry and I was scared they was coming in and hurt me.'

Robinson confirmed most of the essentials of the appellant's account of what happened immediately before and just after the shooting. He said that he heard Crawford warn Ferrell not to come in and that if he did Crawford would shoot. Robinson made contradictory statements as to whether he had or had not heard anything said by Ferrell just before the shooting. His final testimony on this point was in accord with what he had said in a statement made to the police a few hours after the shooting (which was admitted by stipulation) that he heard Ferrell say: 'I'm coming in here anyhow.'

A police officer confirmed the appellant's statement that he had complained to the police earlier in the day about some boys bothering him in his home. He also confirmed the fact that the piece of masonite on the door had been knocked loose so that a man could get his hand in.

The trial court's comments at the end of the trial indicated that he accepted and believed these material parts of appellant's story: (1) that Ferrell had been in the appellant's room demanding and taking money; (2) that Ferrell had warned that he would be back; (3) that at the time of the shooting Ferrell was unlawfully forcing or attempting to force his way into the appellant's home; (4) that the appellant did not deliberately fire at Ferrell's head. In addition, the court thought reasonable the appellant's explanation for not going outside to summon police help. But the court then found that 'the defendant went further than the situation required,' and entered a verdict of not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter.

We have not been referred to, nor have we found, any case decided by this court which is directly in point and controlling in the present case. Most American jurisdictions in which the question has been decided have taken the view that if an assault on a dwelling and an attempted forcible entry are made under circumstances which would create a reasonable apprehension that it is the design of the assailant to commit a felony or to inflict on the inhabitants injury which may result in loss of life or great bodily harm, and that the danger that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
26 cases
  • Burch v. State
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • 1 Septiembre 1996
    ...Corbin, supra, 94 Md.App. 21, 614 A.2d 1329. There is an exception to that requirement, which we enunciated in Crawford v. State, 231 Md. 354, 361, 190 A.2d 538, 541 (1963), that "a man faced with the danger of an attack upon his dwelling need not retreat from his home to escape the danger,......
  • Watts v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • 20 Febrero 2018
    ...against intruders entering one's home. See Burch v. State , 346 Md. 253, 283–84, 696 A.2d 443, 458 (1997) (citing Crawford v. State , 231 Md. 354, 361, 190 A.2d 538, 541 (1963) ).3 Of course, in addition to intentionally frightening and battery, there is a third modality of committing an as......
  • Gainer v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • 11 Octubre 1978
    ...his ground and, if necessary to repel the attack, may kill the attacker. Law v. State, 21 Md.App. 13 (318 A.2d 859); Crawford v. State, 231 Md. 354 (190 A.2d 538)." Appellant specifically excepted to the court's refusal so to instruct. This was also the principal basis for appellant's motio......
  • Watts v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • 20 Febrero 2018
    ...force against intruders entering one's home. See Burch v. State, 346 Md. 253, 283-84, 696 A.2d 443, 458 (1997) (citing Crawford v. State, 231 Md. 354, 361, 190 A.2d 538, 541 (1963)). 3. Of course, in addition to intentionally frightening and battery, there is a third modality of committing ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • § 20.03 Defense of Habitation
    • United States
    • Carolina Academic Press Understanding Criminal Law (CAP) 2022 Title Chapter 20 Defense of Property and Habitation
    • Invalid date
    ...or herself or another." Fla. Stat. § 776.013(2) (2017).[21] State v. Boyett, 185 P.3d 355, 358-60 (N.M. 2008).[22] Crawford v. State, 190 A.2d 538, 542 (Md. 1963) (quoting 1 F. Wharton, Wharton's Criminal Law and Procedure § 206, at 453-55 (Anderson ed., 1957)). [23] E.g., State v. Brookshi......
  • § 20.03 DEFENSE OF HABITATION
    • United States
    • Carolina Academic Press Understanding Criminal Law (CAP) 2018 Title Chapter 20 Defense of Property and Habitation
    • Invalid date
    ...or herself or another." Fla. Stat. § 776.013(2) (2017).[21] . State v. Boyett, 185 P.3d 355, 358-60 (N.M. 2008).[22] . Crawford v. State, 190 A.2d 538, 542 (Md. 1963) (quoting 1 F. Wharton, Wharton's Criminal Law and Procedure § 206, at 453-55 (Anderson ed., 1957)).[23] . E.g., State v. Bro......

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