Leek v. State, 32
| Decision Date | 22 October 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 32,32 |
| Parties | William Edward LEEK v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Morris Lee Kaplan, Baltimore (Michael Lee Kaplan, Baltimore, on the brief), for appellant.
Robert F. Sweeney, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Thomas B. Finan, Atty. Gen., William J. O'Donnell, State's Atty., Joseph G. Koutz, Deputy State's Atty., and Russell J. White, Asst. State's Atty., for Baltimore City, Baltimore, on the brief), for appellee.
Argued before BRUNE, C. J., and HENDERSON, HAMMOND, HORNEY and SYBERT, JJ.
The appellant, convicted by a jury of rape but acquitted of perverted practice, claims prejudice because he was required to be tried on both charges in the same trial, he having been arraigned on the perverted practice charge but a few minutes before the trial began. The claim of prejudice is refuted by the fact the jury found him not guilty of perverted practice. If the cases had been tried separately the prosecuting witness could have testified in the rape case to the occurrence of the perverted practice, as she did, Presley v. State, 224 Md. 550, 168 A.2d 510, cert. den. 368 U.S. 957, 82 S.Ct. 399, 7 L.Ed.2d 389, and, thus, no prejudice arose in connection with the conviction of rape.
The contention of the appellant that it was error to allow the mother of the victim to testify as to the complaints her daughter made on the morning of the rape is without merit. The admission of corroborating evidence that the victim had made complaint promptly was not error. Murphy v. State, 184 Md. 70, 40 A.2d 239. See also Shoemaker v. State, 228 Md. 462, 180 A.2d 682. The objections of appellant to the admission of testimony by a doctor as to the emotional state of the victim and testimony by a policeman that the description of appellant's automobile had been given him by another policeman were insubstantial.
The State's Attorney commented, apparently in the closing argument, that statements made by the appellant when arrested and the testimony of alibi witnesses were inconsistent. There was no reversible error in the refusal to grant a mistrial. The Court instructed the jury that it should decide the case on the evidence and not on the remarks of counsel. If impropriety on the part of the prosecutor be assumed, the cautionary warning of the court cured it. Cohen v. State, 173 Md. 216, 195 A. 533, 196 A. 819, cert. den. 303 U.S. 660, 58 S.Ct. 764, 82 L.Ed. 1119. Cf. Shoemaker v. State, supra.
The trial court was right in refusing a motion for a judgment of acquittal. There was legally...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Werner
...case in chief if the complaint was not made at the time of or relatively soon after the crime. See, e.g., Leek v. State, 229 Md. 526, 527, 184 A.2d 808 (1962), cert. denied, 372 U.S. 946, 83 S.Ct. 940, 9 L.Ed.2d 971 (1963) (evidence of complaint made "promptly" held admissible); Shoemaker v......
-
Lawson v. State
...243 Md. 75, 80, 220 A.2d 131, 135 (1966); Johnson v. State, 238 Md. 528, 536, 209 A.2d 765, 768 (1965); Leek v. State, 229 Md. 526, 528, 184 A.2d 808, 809 (1962) (per curiam), cert. denied, 372 U.S. 946, 83 S.Ct. 940, 9 L.Ed.2d 971 (1963); Domneys v. State, 229 Md. 388, 391, 182 A.2d 880, 8......
-
Nelson v. State
...as part of the prosecution's case if the complaint was made in a recent period of time after the offense." See also Leek v. State, 229 Md. 526, 527, 184 A.2d 808 (1962); Shoemaker v. State, 228 Md. 462, 466-67, 180 A.2d 682 (1962); Saldiveri v. State, 217 Md. 412, 416-18, 143 A.2d 70 (1958)......
-
Corbett v. State
...was made in a recent period of time after the offense." State v. Werner, 302 Md. 550, 563, 489 A.2d 1119 (1985)(citing Leek v. State, 229 Md. 526, 527, 184 A.2d 808 (1962), cert. denied, 372 U.S. 946, 83 S.Ct. 940, 9 L.Ed.2d 971 (1963); Shoemaker v. State, 228 Md. 462, 466-67, 180 A.2d 682 ......