Johnson v. State
| Decision Date | 14 April 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 224,224 |
| Citation | 150 A.2d 446,219 Md. 481 |
| Parties | Calvin JOHNSON v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
H. Emslie Parks, Baltimore (Parks & Parks, Baltimore, on the brief), for appellant.
Joseph S. Kaufman, Asst. Atty. Gen. (C. Ferdinand Sybert, Atty. Gen., J. Harold Grady, State's Atty. for Baltimore City, James W. Murphy, Asst. State's Atty. for Baltimore City, Baltimore, on the brief), for appellee.
Before BRUNE, C. J., and HENDERSON, HAMMOND, PRESCOTT and HORNEY, JJ.
The appellant was convicted in the Criminal Court of Baltimore as a second offender against the narcotics laws. Asserting that he was indigent, he duly moved for a new trial before the Supreme Bench of Baltimore City and requested a free transcript of the testimony at his trial. Rule 30(C-1) of the Supreme Bench requires one convicted in the Criminal Courts of Baltimore to file the original and three copies of the transcript of the testimony as a condition precedent to the hearing of his motion for a new trial. See Majority Opinion of Supreme Bench in Jackson v. State, Daily Record of March 12, 1957. The Supreme Bench refused to order the preparation of the transcript at public expense. As a result, appellant was denied a determination of his motion, and appealed to this Court, claiming that the refusal to furnish him the necessary transcript violated the equal protection and due process provisions of the Federal Constitution.
The authorities are not in entire accord as to the origin of the practice of granting new trials. Hilliard, New Trials, (2 ed.) p. 2; 1 Okla.L.Rev. 252, 253; State v. McCord, 8 Kan. 232, 241, 242; Orfield, Criminal Procedure From Arrest to Appeal, pp. 495, 496. In Baltimore City, unlike the procedure in the counties, the Supreme Bench hears and determines motions for new trials. The hearing of such motions in this manner is authorized by Section 33 of Article 4 of the Maryland Constitution which states that the Supreme Bench shall have jurisdiction to hear such motions arising either 'on questions of fact' or 'for misdirection upon any matters of Law.' This constitutionally granted power to hear motions for new trials is unusual, if not unique; such authority usually emanating from legislative enactment or inveterate custom and usage.
This Court pointed out in Roth v. House of Refuge, 31 Md. 329, that one of the purposes of the procedure contemplated by the constitution is to seek uniformity of decision and provide a forum where there can be had the benefit of review in cases where an appeal will not lie. Often, where an appeal does lie the powers of review of the Supreme Bench in ruling upon the motion for a new trial are broader in scope than those of this Court. It may weigh the evidence in a criminal case even though the case was tried before a jury, and grant a new trial in its sound discretion. It also has the authority to weigh and consider newly discovered evidence. The opportunity to seek a setting aside of his conviction before the Supreme Bench is a valuable one which appellant was denied solely because of lack of funds.
The Supreme Court in Griffin v. People of State of Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, 76 S.Ct. 585, 100 L.Ed. 891 held that when state procedure provides appellate review in criminal cases it must furnish free the transcript of the record, or its equivalent, to those who cannot themselves afford to pay for them if it be a necessary prerequisite of appeal. The holding was reaffirmed in Eskridge v. Washington...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pinkney v. State
...trial. Although the authorities are not in entire accord as to the origin of the practice of granting new trials, see Johnson v. State, 219 Md. 481, 483, 150 A.2d 446, it apparently stems from inveterate custom and usage as an inherent power in the trial court. Blackstone recognized the pow......
-
Petition for Writ of Prohibition, In re
...injustice has been done by the verdict.' " Devers v. State, 9 Md.App. 366, 372, 264 A.2d 291, 294 (1970) (citing Johnson v. State, 219 Md. 481, 483, 150 A.2d 446, 447 (1959)). We In the course of doing so, we considered whether motions for judgment of acquittal should have been granted. Ref......
-
State v. Devers
...a preponderance of proof in favor of the accused 'as to show that manifest injustice has been done by the verdict.' See Johnson v. State, 219 Md. 481, 483, 150 A.2d 446; Brown v. State, 237 Md. 492, 499, 207 A.2d 103. In denying the motion for a new trial the lower court (i. e., Bowie, J.) ......
-
Pearlman v. State, 286
...as adequate appellate review as those who have money enough to buy transcripts and employ lawyers. This Court held in Johnson v. State, 219 Md. 481, 150 A.2d 446, and in Edwardsen v. State, 220 Md. 82, 151 A.2d 132 (in both of which the question was presented here in an appeal from the sent......