Lewis v. State, 429

CourtCourt of Appeals of Maryland
Writing for the CourtBefore BRUNE; PRESCOTT; HAMMOND
Citation202 A.2d 370,235 Md. 588
PartiesJohn Henry LEWIS, Jr., v. STATE of Maryland.
Docket NumberNo. 429,429
Decision Date09 July 1964

Page 588

235 Md. 588
202 A.2d 370
John Henry LEWIS, Jr.,
STATE of Maryland.
No. 429.
Court of Appeals of Maryland.
July 9, 1964.

Page 589

Joseph G. Finnerty, Jr., Baltimore, for appellant.

David T. Mason, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Thomas B. Finan, Atty. Gen., William J. O'Donnell and Charles E. Moylan, Jr., State's Atty. and Deputy State's Atty., respectively, for Baltimore City, all of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellee.

Page 588


Page 589


Appellant was charged in seven indictments (Nos. 1853-1859) with robbery: three of said indictments charging simple robbery and four armed robbery. In all of these cases, a codefendant, Claude Street, was also charged. Rosetta Green was also named as a codefendant with appellant and Street in No. 1854 only, and one Smith was named a codefendant with them in No. 1857 only. Street, alone, was also charged in indictments Nos. 1860 and 1861 with armed robbery and in indictment No. 1862 with larceny. Each of said indictments charged separate offenses at different times and places. All of the cases were tried at the same time in the Criminal Court of Baltimore by a judge, sitting without a jury. The State entered a stet as to indictment 1853, and the record extract does not disclose the disposition of 1855; presumably appellant was acquitted as to the charge contained therein. He was convicted under indictments 1854 and 1856 through 1859.

[202 A.2d 371] Before any testimony was taken, the following colloquy took place between the court and counsel:

(Mr. Cole) 'I move for a severance as to Rosetta Green.'

(The Court) 'Overruled.'

(Mr. Moylan, assistant State's Attorney) 'We are going to try Indictments No. 1853 through No. 1862 with respect to all Defendants except the Defendant William Leonard Smith.'

(Mr. Levin) 'I don't know anything about the Smith case. I understood you were going to try all of the cases. I would like to know why we are not going to try all of them in the light of the previous ruling?'

Page 590

(The Court) 'I don't know. The State's Attorney is trying the case.'

(Mr. Moylan) 'Because the State intends to use this Defendant as a State's witness; * * *.'

(Mr. Levin) 'I would like to take an exception to the Court's ruling requiring all of the cases to be tried together.'

Maryland Rule 734 provides that 'The court may order two or more indictments to be tried together if the offenses...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 cases
  • Wieland v. State, 1412
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • 1 Septiembre 1993
    ...of largely duplicative trials are very weighty, albeit not dispositive, factors in joint trial determinations. Lewis v. State, 235 Md. 588, 590, 202 A.2d 370 (1964); Cook v. State, 84 Md.App. 122, 130, 578 A.2d 283 (1990), cert. denied, 321 Md. 502, 583 A.2d 276 (1991); Erman v. State, 49 M......
  • Erman v. State, 1601
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • 10 Septiembre 1981
    ...of defendants for trial is favored for reasons of economy, of time and other resources of the court and witnesses, Lewis v. State, 235 Md. 588 (202 A.2d 370) (1963); Johnson v. State, 38 Md.App. 307 (sic) (306, 381 A.2d 303) (1977); Peterson v. State, 15 Md.App. 478 (292 A.2d 714) (1972). A......
  • Spease v. State, 419
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • 21 Mayo 1974
    ...no time requested a severance. The cases he cites of Wilson, Valentine and Nutter v. State, 8 Md.App. 653, 262 A.2d 91, and Lewis v. State, 235 Md. 588, 202 A.2d 370, are not on point, since in both of those cases, severances were affirmatively requested. Maryland Rule 735, although not pre......
  • Shingleton v. State, 1132
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • 9 Junio 1978
    ...375 A.2d 551 (1977), rev'g 33 Md.App. 280, 364 A.2d 116 (1976); McChan v. State, 238 Md. 149, 207 A.2d 632 (1965); and Lewis v. State, 235 Md. 588, 202 A.2d 370 (1964). We possess neither the inclination to overrule Wilson nor the power to ignore, thus implicitly overruling, McKnight, McCha......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT