Ford v. State
Decision Date | 01 September 1992 |
Docket Number | No. 59,59 |
Citation | 625 A.2d 984,330 Md. 682 |
Parties | Maurice Edward FORD v. STATE of Maryland. , |
Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
John L. Kopolow, Asst. Public Defender (Stephen E. Harris, Public Defender, both on brief), Baltimore, for petitioner.
Thomas K. Clancy, Asst. Atty. Gen. (J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Atty. Gen., both on brief), Baltimore, for respondent.
Argued before MURPHY, C.J., and ELDRIDGE, RODOWSKY, McAULIFFE, CHASANOW, KARWACKI and ROBERT M. BELL, JJ.
In the early morning hours of May 27, 1990, petitioner, Maurice Edward Ford, and three other youths stood on or next to the Capital Beltway and hurled large landscaping rocks at vehicles travelling on the Beltway. A number of people in the vehicles were injured and significant damage was done to many vehicles. Ford was apprehended on June 2, 1990, and a ninety count indictment ultimately charged him with assault with intent to murder (eight counts), assault with intent to maim (one count), assault with intent to disable (twenty-eight counts), assault and battery (twenty-nine counts), and malicious destruction of property (twenty-four counts). A Prince George's County Circuit Court jury found Ford guilty of one count of assault with intent to maim, eleven counts of assault with intent to disable, seventeen counts of assault and battery, six counts of assault, fourteen counts of malicious destruction of property which the jury found to have value of $300 or more, and three counts of malicious destruction of property of value less than $300. The circuit court, Missouri, J., imposed sentences totalling thirty-nine years with additional prison terms suspended in favor of five years probation to commence upon Ford's release.
Ford appealed to the Court of Special Appeals, which reversed and remanded for resentencing on two of the malicious destruction of property counts worth less than $300, but otherwise affirmed all of the convictions. 1 Ford v. State, 90 Md.App. 673, 603 A.2d 883 (1992). Upon his petition to this Court, we granted certiorari to consider issues relating to his remaining convictions. We find no error and affirm Ford's convictions.
We adopt the facts as set forth in the opinion of the Court of Special Appeals:
Ford, 90 Md.App. at 677-80, 603 A.2d at 885-86.
Ford makes four principle assertions of error regarding his convictions. We address each in turn.
For the damage his rock-throwing caused to various vehicles, Ford was charged with twenty-four counts of "malicious destruction of an automobile" under Maryland Code (1957, 1992 Repl.Vol.), Article 27, § 111. 2 Section 111 divides the crime of malicious destruction of property into two degrees of misdemeanor. At the time Ford was charged, the statute provided that the malicious destruction of property valued at less than $300 carried a penalty of up to a $500 fine or 60 days imprisonment or both; malicious destruction of property valued at $300 or greater carried a penalty of up to a $2,500 fine or three years imprisonment or both. 3 Ford's indictment did not specifically allege value on any of the twenty-four counts.
Ford contends that, by failing to specifically allege value of $300 or greater, the indictment charged only the lesser degree of the crime. Therefore, he contends that even though he did not object to submission of the greater crime to the jury, he could not be found guilty of fourteen counts of that greater crime. Ford relies on dictum in Spratt v. State, 315 Md. 680, 556 A.2d 667 (1989), in which we said that "if the State wishes to pursue the more serious offense, it must specifically charge and prove the value of the destroyed property, [$300 or greater]." Id. at 686, 556 A.2d at 669-70. This was dictum in Spratt because the defendant there was properly charged with the greater offense; rather, the issue in Spratt was the court's failure to instruct the jury that it must specifically find that the defendant destroyed property of $300 or more in value to convict on that charge. Nonetheless, we think Spratt correctly stated the law with respect to charging as well.
An apt analogy can be found in our construction of the consolidated theft statute, § 342. Section 342(f) divides theft into the felony of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Windfield
...everyone in that victim's vicinity.’ " ( Bland, supra , 28 Cal.4th. at p. 329, 121 Cal.Rptr.2d 546, 48 P.3d 1107, quoting Ford v. State (1993) 330 Md. 682 .) The Supreme Court explained that " ‘[w]here the means employed to commit the crime against a primary victim create a zone of harm aro......
-
People v. Chandler, A114037 (Cal. App. 2/18/2009)
...intended that harm to all who are in the anticipated zone . . . .'" (Bland, supra, 28 Cal.4th 313, 329-330, quoting Ford v. State (Md.Ct.App. 1992) 625 A.2d 984, 1000.) The court pointed out that "This concurrent intent theory is not a legal doctrine requiring special jury instructions . . ......
-
Fuentes v. Gonzales, 1:10-cv-00003-AWI-JLT HC
...to kill everyone in A's immediate vicinity to ensure A's death.'" (Bland, supra, 28 Cal.4th at pp. 329-330, quoting Ford v. State (Md. 1993) 625 A.2d 984, 1000-1001.)The court instructed the jury on attempted murder in accordance with former CALCRIM No. 600. The instruction included these s......
-
In re In re Dupree Antoine Glass On Habeas Corpus
...devastating enough to kill everyone in the group.’ " ( Id. at p. 330, 121 Cal.Rptr.2d 546, 48 P.3d 1107, quoting Ford v. State (1993) 330 Md. 682, 717, 625 A.2d 984, 1000-1001.) In these scenarios, " ‘[t]he defendant has intentionally created a "kill zone" to ensure the death of his primary......
-
§ 10.04 Frequently Used Mens Rea Terms
...quoted this text).[50] Ramsey v. State, 56 P.3d 675, 681 (Alaska Ct. App. 2002); Millen v. State, 988 S.W.2d 164, 165 (Tenn. 1999).[51] 625 A.2d 984 (Md. 1993).[52] Regina v. Pembliton, 12 Cox C.C. 607 (1874) (Court of Criminal Appeal).[53] See also Mordica v. State, 618 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 1s......
-
§ 10.04 FREQUENTLY USED MENS REA TERMS
...this text).[50] . Ramsey v. State, 56 P.3d 675, 681 (Alaska Ct. App. 2002); Millen v. State, 988 S.W.2d 164, 165 (Tenn. 1999).[51] . 625 A.2d 984 (Md. 1993).[52] . Regina v. Pembliton, 12 Cox C.C. 607 (1874) (Court of Criminal Appeal).[53] . See Mordica v. State, 618 So. 2d 301 (Fla. Dist. ......