Grice v. State
| Decision Date | 27 November 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 60,60 |
| Citation | 235 A.2d 316,2 Md.App. 482 |
| Parties | John Carroll GRICE v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Morris Lee Kaplan, Baltimore, Michael Lee Kaplan, Baltimore, on brief, for appellant.
Bernard L. Silbert, Asst. Atty. Gen., Baltimore, Francis B. Burch, Atty. Gen., Charles E. Moylan, Jr., and Thomas N. Biddison, Jr., State's Atty. and Asst. State's Atty. for Baltimore City, respectively, Baltimore, for appellee.
Before MURPHY, C. J., anc ANDERSON, MORTON, ORTH and THOMPSON, JJ.
John Carroll Grice, the appellant, was convicted of murder in the first degree in the Criminal Court of Baltimore before Judge Meyer M. Cardin presiding without a jury. Grice complains that there was insufficient evidence to support the verdict, and that hearsay testimony was admitted.
We need to cite only a small part of the testimony to show that there was sufficient evidence to support the verdict. Marjorie Daves testified that immediately after the homicide, the appellant ran into her home and stated that he had 'just killed a man' and the police would be there in a few minutes; and further that he washed blood stains from a saw tooth knife, put it back into its sheath, and examined a wallet containing papers belonging to the deceased. Doris Wilson testified that she and a friend took Grice home; that enroute when queried about why he had stabbed the man up the street, he stated: 'I wanted to see if he had any scratch.' Other evidence established the homicide. Under Maryland Rule 1086 we are precluded from reversing a trial judge sitting without a jury on a question of sufficiency of the evidence unless he was clearly erroneous. Obviously, there was no such error in this case.
The second complaint concerns the admission of testimony by a police officer that he took the wallet to a nephew of the deceased who identified it as the property of the deceased by the papers in it. While the admission of such testimony was obvious error, the wallet was in evidence and contained papers belonging to the deceased. Under these circumstances we have no difficulty in finding that the admission of the testimony was harmless. See Chapman v. State of California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pahanish v. Western Trails, Inc.
...444 U.S. 941, 100 S.Ct. 295, 62 L.Ed.2d 308 (1979); Szewczyk v. State, 7 Md.App. 597, 602, 256 A.2d 713 (1969); Grice v. State, 2 Md.App. 482, 486, 235 A.2d 316 (1967). The function of this Court in reviewing a non-jury case is not to determine whether, on the evidence, it might have reache......
-
Bailey v. State
...4 Md.App. 612, 244 A.2d 444; Gunn v. State, 4 Md.App. 379, 243 A.2d 15; Sparkman v. State, 3 Md.App. 527, 240 A.2d 328; Grice v. State, 2 Md.App. 482, 235 A.2d 316; Lewis v. State, 2 Md.App. 318, 234 A.2d 487; and cases cited in those opinions. cf. Smithson v. State, 5 Md.App. 378, 247 A.2d......
-
Johnson v. State
...White v. State, 7 Md.App. 416, 256 A.2d 174 (1969), Richardson & Thomas v. State, 7 Md.App. 334, 255 A.2d 463 (1969), Grice v. State, 2 Md.App. 482, 235 A.2d 316 (1967) and Lewis v. State, 2 Md.App. 318, 234 A.2d 487 (1967) are inapposite. In both Richardson and White, the hearsay was not o......
-
Richardson v. State
...is not a reasonable possibility that the statements complained of might have contributed to the conviction. See also Grice v. State, 2 Md.App. 482, 235 A.2d 316 (1967). IV In two sentences tacked to the end of their short discussion of the issue disposed of immediately above, and with no ci......