Deinhardt v. State, No. 308

CourtCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland
Writing for the CourtGILBERT
Citation348 A.2d 286,29 Md.App. 391
Docket NumberNo. 308
Decision Date05 December 1975
PartiesMichael William DEINHARDT v. STATE of Maryland.

Page 391

29 Md.App. 391
348 A.2d 286
Michael William DEINHARDT
v.
STATE of Maryland.
No. 308.
Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.
Dec. 5, 1975.
Certiorari Denied March 2, 1976.

[348 A.2d 287]

Page 392

William F. C. Marlow, Jr. and W. Stanwood Whiting, Assigned Public Defenders, Baltimore, for appellant.

John A. Austin, Asst.Atty.Gen., with whom were Francis B. Burch, Atty.Gen., Sandra A. O'Connor, State's Atty., Baltimore County and Steven Silverman, Asst. State's Atty., Baltimore County on the brief, for appellee.

Argued before MOYLAN, GILBERT and MELVIN, JJ.

GILBERT, Judge.

Michael William Deinhardt, appellant, was convicted at a non-jury trial in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County of rape. Following the sentencing of appellant which occurred the same date, an appeal was noted to this Court. Appellant vigorously urges, inter alia, that the trial judge erred in refusing '. . . to allow cross-examination seeking to establish the bias of the complaining witness, where her testimony was the only proof tending to establish lack of consent. . . .'

The appellant met the prosecutrix, apparently for the first time, at approximately 10:45 P.M. on June 1, 1974, in Sweeney's Lounge, where the prosecutrix worked as a waitress in the restaurant downstairs, in Baltimore City. A conversation ensued between the appellant and prosecutrix, and the two danced and conversed during the course of the evening. Shortly after midnight, the prosecutrix decided to leave the upstairs lounge. She retrieved her purse from behind the bar and, when offered a ride home by the appellant, readily accepted.

According to the State's case, appellant drove north on the Jones Falls Expressway towards Baltimore County. The prosecutrix noticed that they had passed the exit from the Jones Falls Expressway which led to the street upon which she resided. She wanted to leave the vehicle, but the

Page 393

appellant produced a switchblade knife, 'flicked' it open, told her that she could not leave the car, and he then increased the vehicle's speed to '. . . a hundred miles an hour.' According to the prosecutrix the appellant stopped his car '. . . about twenty, (to) twenty-five minutes . . .' later on a 'deserted road' where there were '. . . no lights whatsoever.' The prosecutrix testified that the appellant drove his car into such a position that the passenger's door could not be opened because of its proximity to a tree. After the appellant had brought the vehicle to a halt, he had the prosecutrix change places with him on the front seat. When the prosecutrix moved onto the driver's side of the front seat, she attempted to open the door to make good an escape, but she was prevented from doing so by the appellant. A struggle ensued for possession of the knife, and during the course of that altercation, the appellant and the prosecutrix each received several cuts upon their person. The prosecutrix received lacerations on her right hand index finger, her legs and her back. Once the appellant regained control of the knife, he struck the prosecutrix upon the side of her face and ordered her into the back of his vehicle, a station wagon, where she was compelled to disrobe and submit to sexual intercourse.

The prosecutrix told the trial judge that after the sexual act had been completed the appellant stated to her that he '. . . was going to kill me on up the road.' The appellant drove the car for a period of about '10 minutes' when the prosecutrix observed another car approaching. She leaped from the appellant's car, ran to the approaching vehicle where she sought and obtained the protection of the operator of that car, who telephoned for an ambulance. [348 A.2d 288] She was subsequently transported to the Carroll County Hospital. There the prosecutrix was treated for her injuries and the police were notified.

Appellant's version of the incident is in startling contrast to that of the prosecutrix. He states that he picked up the prosecutrix in Sweeney's Lounge, and that he drove her at her request into the countryside. They stopped near New Freedom, Pennsylvania, and from the hill on which they

Page 394

were parked one could see the lights of New Freedom. Then the prosecutrix left the vehicle for the purpose of relieving herself. When she returned she grabbed his knife from its resting place on the dashboard, and she immediately stabbed him with it. In his attempt to recover the knife from her, she was cut on the hand. Appellant stated that he threatened to have the prosecutrix arrested, presumably for assault upon his person, and at one point he told her that she could get 'thiry years' for her having stabbed him. Immediately thereafter, the appellant says, the prosecutrix became extremely friendly and made sexual advances to him. Mutually voluntary sexual intercourse ensued.

At trial the appellant apparently sought to establish that the rape charge was brought by the prosecutrix in an effort to take the legal initiative and thus diminish the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 practice notes
  • Pettie v. State, No. 803
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • September 1, 1986
    ...falsify his testimony. Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 94 S.Ct. 1105, 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974); Robinson v. State, supra; Deinhardt v. State, 29 Md.App. 391, 348 A.2d 286 (1975), cert. denied, 277 Md. 736, 741 (1976); State v. DeLawder, 28 Md.App. 212, 344 A.2d 446 (1975). The witness would hav......
  • State v. Jones, No. 720
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • April 7, 1982
    ...may be tried for rape in one county even though vaginal intercourse may have occurred in an adjoining county. See Deinhardt v. State, 29 Md.App. 391, 398, 348 A.2d 286 (1975), cert. denied, 277 Md. 736 (1976). The transportation of the victim, i.e., the actual movement in, through, or to a ......
  • Washington v. State, No. 1709 September Term, 2006.
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • July 1, 2008
    ...turn quoting Gates v. Kelley, 15 N.D. 639, 110 N.W. 770, 773 (N.D.1906))). As Judge Gilbert wrote for this Court in Deinhardt v. State, 29 Md. App. 391, 397, 348 A.2d 286 (1975), cert. denied, 277 Md. 736 (1976), "[t]he opinion of the majority in Davis [v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 94 S.Ct. 110......
  • McNeil v. State, No. 173
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • September 1, 1996
    ...400, 406, 85 S.Ct. 1065, 1069, 13 L.Ed.2d 923 (1965). Maryland law is in accord. Ebb, 341 Md. at 586, 671 A.2d 974; Deinhardt v. State, 29 Md.App. 391, 395, 348 A.2d 286 (1975); State v. DeLawder, 28 Md.App. 212, 216, 344 A.2d 446 (1975). Further, the tool of cross-examination permits the d......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
15 cases
  • Pettie v. State, No. 803
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • September 1, 1986
    ...falsify his testimony. Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 94 S.Ct. 1105, 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974); Robinson v. State, supra; Deinhardt v. State, 29 Md.App. 391, 348 A.2d 286 (1975), cert. denied, 277 Md. 736, 741 (1976); State v. DeLawder, 28 Md.App. 212, 344 A.2d 446 (1975). The witness would hav......
  • State v. Jones, No. 720
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • April 7, 1982
    ...may be tried for rape in one county even though vaginal intercourse may have occurred in an adjoining county. See Deinhardt v. State, 29 Md.App. 391, 398, 348 A.2d 286 (1975), cert. denied, 277 Md. 736 (1976). The transportation of the victim, i.e., the actual movement in, through, or to a ......
  • Washington v. State, No. 1709 September Term, 2006.
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • July 1, 2008
    ...turn quoting Gates v. Kelley, 15 N.D. 639, 110 N.W. 770, 773 (N.D.1906))). As Judge Gilbert wrote for this Court in Deinhardt v. State, 29 Md. App. 391, 397, 348 A.2d 286 (1975), cert. denied, 277 Md. 736 (1976), "[t]he opinion of the majority in Davis [v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 94 S.Ct. 110......
  • McNeil v. State, No. 173
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • September 1, 1996
    ...400, 406, 85 S.Ct. 1065, 1069, 13 L.Ed.2d 923 (1965). Maryland law is in accord. Ebb, 341 Md. at 586, 671 A.2d 974; Deinhardt v. State, 29 Md.App. 391, 395, 348 A.2d 286 (1975); State v. DeLawder, 28 Md.App. 212, 216, 344 A.2d 446 (1975). Further, the tool of cross-examination permits the d......
  • 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