Lee v. State, 46.
| Court | Court of Appeals of Maryland |
| Writing for the Court | SLOAN, Judge |
| Citation | 165 A. 614 |
| Parties | LEE v. STATE. |
| Docket Number | No. 46.,46. |
| Decision Date | 06 April 1933 |
LEE
v.
STATE.
No. 46.
Court of Appeals of Maryland.
April 6, 1933.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Baltimore County; T. Scott Offutt, Walter W. Preston, and C. Gus Grason, Judges.
Euel Lee, alias Orphan Jones, was convicted of murder in the first degree, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Argued before BOND, C. J., and URNER, ADKINS, PARKE, and SLOAN, JJ.
Bernard Ades, of Baltimore, and David Levinson, of Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant.
Wm. L. Henderson, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Godfrey Child, State's Atty., of Snow Hill, for Worcester County (Wm. Preston Lane, Jr., Atty. Gen., James C. L. Anderson, State's Atty., of Towson, for Baltimore County, and James A. McAllister, State's Atty., of Cambridge, for Dorchester County, on the brief), for the State.
SLOAN, Judge.
On September 29, 1932, Euel Lee, the appellant, was found guilty of murder in the first degree, by a jury in Baltimore county, whence the case had been removed at the instance of the appellant from Worcester county. On October 22, 1932, he was sentenced to death, and from this sentence he appeals. The offense for which he was indicted was the murder, on or about the 11th day of October, 1931, of Green Davis at Worcester county. A suggestion for removal was made in the circuit court for Worcester county, by the appellant, and that court removed the case to Dorchester county, an order which was later stricken out and an order passed removing the case to Baltimore county (Lee v. State, 161 Md. 430, 157 A. 723) where he was tried, on January 20, 1932, found guilty, and on January 28, 1932, sen-fenced to death. From this sentence he appealed on the ground that his rights had been prejudiced because no one of his race had been considered in the selection of the panel from which the petit jury at the December term, 1931, was drawn, an exclusion which was held to show prejudice in the opinion by Chief Judge Bond in Lee v. State, 163 Md. 56, 161 A. 284, and the case was remanded to the circuit court for Baltimore county for a second trial, with a repetition of the first result. The appellant offered no evidence. All of his resistance was to a trial of the case at the September term, 1932.
The appellant reserved thirty-three exceptions to adverse rulings which are appropriately grouped under the three questions here urged by him as cause for reversal.
The appellant, before proceeding with the trial, first filed a formal motion for a removal to a county "where there are no Jim Crow or segregation regulations against negroes," which was overruled, and abandoned at the argument on appeal. The right had been and can only be exercised once. Cooke v. Cooke, 41 Md. 362; Price v. State, 8 Gill, 296; Fountain v. State, 135 Md. 87, 108 A. 473.
The defendant then moved in writing for a continuance on the ground that certain "Jim Crow" regulations of the county commissioners of Baltimore county were prejudicial to his rights, that the court bailiffs or other authorities segregated negro spectators and witnesses into a portion of the court room, and that they "are excluded from the lavatories and toilets, open for use by white people, and are forced to refrain from using such toilets, but on the contrary, are directed, ordered and compelled to use only such toilets as are specifically set aside for use
by negroes which fact is publicly announced by placards and signs prominently posted in said court room," and "that in Baltimore County negroes are excluded from hotels, restaurants, theatres, moving picture houses, etc., visited and patronized by white people, solely on account of their race and color," and that by reason of these facts and circumstances the defendant could not have a fair and impartial trial until such practices and regulations are discontinued.
No authority for such a motion, based on such reasons, was cited by defendant's counsel, the granting of a continuance, in the absence of abuse, resting in the discretion of the court. Downs v. State, 111 Md. 241, 73 A. 893, 18 Ann. Cas. 786; Newton v. State, 147 Md. 71, 127 A. 123; Cumberland & W. Transit Co. v. Metz, 158 Md. 425, 149 A. 565. In Aldridge v. U. S., 283 U. S. 308, 314, 51 S. Ct. 470, 473, 75 L. Ed. 1054, 1058, 73 A. L. R. 1203. a case relied on by the defendant to support his exceptions taken on the examination of jurors on their voir dire, it is said: "The question is not as to the civil privileges of the negro, or as to the dominant sentiment of the community and the general absence of any disqualifying prejudice, but as to the bias of the particular jurors who are to try the accused." White and colored alike are entitled to the equal protection of the laws, yet states have not been denied the right to pass and enforce many segregation statutes. Railways and other means of transportation have been required by states and lawfully, to provide separate compartments for whites and colored. Innkeepers, in the conduct of their business, are not required to throw their houses open to whomsoever chooses to be their guests. Hall v. De Cuir, 95 U. S. 485, 24 L. Ed. 547, 553; Chiles v. C. & O. R, Co., 218 U. S. 71, 30 S....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davis v. State, 954
...of ascertaining the existence of cause for disqualification, and is not permitted for any other purpose."); Lee v. State, 164 Md. 550, 557, 165 A. 614, 617 Page 100 (1933); Cohen v. State, 173 Md. 216, 224, 195 A. 532 (1937); Corens v. State, 185 Md. 561, 564, 45 A.2d 340 (1946). As a means......
-
Johnson v. State, s. 21
...948, 89 S.Ct. 1284, 22 L.Ed.2d 482 (1969) ("the absolute right of removal can be exercised only once"); Lee v. State, 164 Md. 550, 552, 165 A. 614, 615, cert. denied, 290 U.S. 639, 54 S.Ct. 56, 78 L.Ed. 555 (1933) (and cases cited therein) ("the right [of removal] had been and can only be e......
-
State ex rel. Fox v. La Porte Circuit Court, 3583
...dismissed 325 U.S. 835, 65 S.Ct. 1202, 89 L.Ed. 1962; State v. Wagner, 1926, 311 Mo. 391, 279 S.W. 23, 26; Lee v. State, 1933, 164 Md. 550, 165 A. 614, 615, certiorari denied 290 U.S. 639, 54 S.Ct. 56, 78 L.Ed.[236 Ind. 79] 555; People ex rel. Wooten v. Blanchard, 1921, 70 Colo. 237, 199 P.......
-
Veney v. State, 566
...a matter of right for a second removal.' Page 191 The absolute right of removal can be exercised only once. Lee v. State, 164 Md. 550, 552, 165 A. 614 (1933), cert. denied, 290 U.S. 639, 54 S.Ct. 56, 78 L.Ed. 555 Appellant complains of the extensive publicity given the trial of his brother,......
-
State ex rel. Fox v. La Porte Circuit Court, No. 3583
...dismissed 325 U.S. 835, 65 S.Ct. 1202, 89 L.Ed. 1962; State v. Wagner, 1926, 311 Mo. 391, 279 S.W. 23, 26; Lee v. State, 1933, 164 Md. 550, 165 A. 614, 615, certiorari denied 290 U.S. 639, 54 S.Ct. 56, 78 L.Ed.[236 Ind. 79] 555; People ex rel. Wooten v. Blanchard, 1921, 70 Colo. 237, 199 P.......
-
Davis v. State, No. 954
...of ascertaining the existence of cause for disqualification, and is not permitted for any other purpose."); Lee v. State, 164 Md. 550, 557, 165 A. 614, 617 Page 100 (1933); Cohen v. State, 173 Md. 216, 224, 195 A. 532 (1937); Corens v. State, 185 Md. 561, 564, 45 A.2d 340 (1946). As a means......
-
Johnson v. State, s. 21
...948, 89 S.Ct. 1284, 22 L.Ed.2d 482 (1969) ("the absolute right of removal can be exercised only once"); Lee v. State, 164 Md. 550, 552, 165 A. 614, 615, cert. denied, 290 U.S. 639, 54 S.Ct. 56, 78 L.Ed. 555 (1933) (and cases cited therein) ("the right [of removal] had been and can only be e......
-
Meade v. Dennistone, No. 26.
...segregation is allowable on railroads, in schools and in public places, provided equal facilities are afforded, Lee v. State, 164 Md. 550, 165 A. 614, and disallowed when they are not, University of Maryland v. Murray, 169 Md. 478, 182 A. 590, 103 A.L.R. 706; Maddox v. Neal, 45 Ark. 121, 55......