Greene v. State
| Decision Date | 08 January 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 163,163 |
| Citation | 233 Md. 274,196 A.2d 454 |
| Parties | Lloyd S. GREENE v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Rolf A. Quisgard, Jr., Baltimore, for appellant.
Stuart H. Rome, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Thomas B. Finan, Atty. Gen., William J. O'Donnell, State's Atty., and Donald Needle and James W. McAllister, Asst. State's Attys., Baltimore, on the brief), for appellee.
Before HENDERSON, HAMMOND, PRESCOTT, MARBURY and SYBERT, JJ.
Appellant poses three questions, none of which has merit.
His cases were set for trial about three weeks after arraignments. The woman (not his wife) with whom he had been living employed a lawyer to represent him, agreeing to pay the lawyer in installments. She was unable to make the payments, and, on the morning of trial, the lawyer asked leave to withdraw. The accused did not join in the request. The lawyer's request was denied, as coming too late. The trial court complimented counsel on the able manner of his conducting the defense. The appellant now claims the denial was prejudicial error. We find no abuse of discretion here. Maryland Rule 751; Jackson v. State, 214 Md. 454, 135 A.2d 638, cert. den. 356 U.S. 940, 78 S.Ct. 784, 2 L.Ed.2d 816.
Appellant does not clearly state his second contention. He appears to claim that the failure of his trial counsel to call the woman with whom he was living as a witness constituted such incompetency as to deprive him of due process of law. As a general rule, the decision as to whether or not to call a witness is merely a matter of trial tactics. Stevens v. State, 230 Md. 47, 185 A.2d 194. There is no showing here as to what the witness would have testified had she been called. It is entirely possible that this matter of trial tactics may have been sound trial tactics--her testimony may have been unfavorable to the accused.
Appellant's third assignment of error is the trial court's sustaining an objection to a question propounded to the appellant, and striking out his answer thereto. The question was a leading one; consequently, the trial court's action was justified.
Judgments affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. State
...hindsight, a decision may seem unwise, mere error in trial tactics do not amount, per se, to inadequate representation. Greene v. State, 233 Md. 274, 196 A.2d 454 (1964); Stevens v. State, Brown's trial counsel was vigorous in cross-examination. The fact that he produced no defense witnesse......
-
Gantt v. State
...of defendant's uncooperativeness would lead inevitably to refusal of experienced defendants to cooperate with counsel. Greene v. State, 233 Md. 274, 196 A.2d 454 (1964), involved an attempt by trial counsel to withdraw his appearance based on a different type of client uncooperativeness--th......
-
Bennett v. State, 101
...and penetration, made it a matter of trial tactics whether to object to leading questions or to call a certain witness. Cf. Greene v. State, 233 Md. 274, 196 A.2d 454. The criminal record of the appellant could not have been kept out after he took the stand. Likewise, a stipulation as to th......
-
Howard v. State
...made, mere tactical errors of trial counsel do not amount, per se, to inadequate representation. Brown v. State, supra; Greene v. State, 233 Md. 274, 196 A.2d 454. Appellant also argues that he did not have the benefit of competent counsel because his appointed attorney was overwhelmed on t......