Harris v. State, 209
| Decision Date | 19 March 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 209,209 |
| Citation | 149 A.2d 778,219 Md. 405 |
| Parties | David Nathaniel HARRIS v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Walter D. Webster, Salisbury, for appellant.
Clayton A. Dietrich, Asst. Atty. Gen. (C. Ferdinand Sybert, Atty. Gen., and Hamilton P. Fox, Jr., State's Atty. for Wicomico County, Salisbury, on the brief), for appellee.
Before BRUNE, C. J., and HENDERSON, HAMMOND, PRESCOTT and HORNEY, JJ.
The appeal is from judgment and sentence that followed a verdict of guilty of common law burglary by a jury.
Appellant argues that the relevant evidence before the jury could not sustain the conviction. We find nothing before this Court for review. No motion for a directed verdict was made during the trial below and we are precluded from passing on the contention as to the sufficiency of the evidence. 'In the absence of any request for an instruction there can be no review of the sufficiency of the evidence.' Auchincloss v. State, 200 Md. 310, 315, 89 A.2d 605, 607, Reynolds v. State, Md., 149 A.2d 774. There was no exception to, nor request for amplification of the trial court's charge to the jury, so that no question of law is presented. Maryland Rule 739.
We deem it fitting to say that our scrutiny of the record persuades us that the result would not be different were we free to pass on the sufficiency of the evidence.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Martel v. State
...he did in fact voluntarily convert his employer's funds, contrary to Code (1957), Art. 27, Sec. 353, is not open on appeal. Harris v. State, 219 Md. 405, 149 A.2d 778; Bulluck v. State, 219 Md. 67, 148 A.2d Appellant is not helped by claiming that it was not proven that venue properly was l......
-
Harris v. Warden, Maryland Penitentiary, Civ. A. No. 13030.
...from that sentence to the Maryland Court of Appeals where the judgment was affirmed by a per curiam opinion, reported in 219 Md. 405, 149 A.2d 778 (March 1959). Subsequently he filed a petition for a post conviction hearing under Art. 27, § 645A et seq., 1957 Code as amended, 1958 Supp., wh......