Lotharp v. State
| Decision Date | 03 April 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 254,254 |
| Citation | 231 Md. 239,189 A.2d 652 |
| Parties | Lonnle LOTHARP v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
John J. Mitchell, Takoma Park, for appellant.
Thomas B. Finan, Atty. Gen., and James P. Garland, Asst. Atty. Gen., Baltimore, Arthur A. Marshall, State's Atty. and Frank P. Flury, Deputy State's Atty., Upper Marlboro, for appellee.
Before BRUNE, C. J., and HENDERSON, PRESCOTT, HORNEY and SYBERT, JJ.
The appellant, convicted of a homicide by a jury at a trial in which he was represented by counsel of his own choosing, contends on appeal that the failure of counsel to move for a judgment of acquittal should not preclude him from having this Court review the sufficiency of the evidence to convict him of murder in the second degree.
Since no motion for judgment of acquittal was made at any stage of the trial there can be no review of the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal. Under the provisions of § 5 of Art. XV of the Constitution of this State, Code (1957), Art. 27, § 593, and Maryland Rule 755, an appellate review of the sufficiency of the evidence in a criminal case tried by a jury is predicated on the refusal of the trial court to grant a motion for judgment of acquittal. Humphreys v. State, 227 Md. 115, 175 A.2d 777; Ledbetter v. State, 224 Md. 271, 167 A.2d 596. See also Stevens v. State, 230 Md. 47, 185 A.2d 194. The judgment must therefore be affirmed.
We may add that an examination of the record indicates that had the motion for judgment of acquittal been made pursuant to the rule, the result would be the same.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Boone v. State
...Indictment which charged robbery with a deadly weapon, etc. This preserved for him our review of this contention. Lotharp v. State, 231 Md. 239, 240, 189 A.2d 652 (1963); and Tull v. State, 230 Md. 152, 155, 186 A.2d 205 (1962). In order to overturn a judgment entered on the verdict of a ju......
-
Ennis v. State
...of the evidence. Maryland Rule 755b; Briley v. State, 212 Md. 445, 129 A.2d 689." Id. at 229, 179 A.2d at 366. In Lotharp v. State, 231 Md. 239, 189 A.2d 652 (1963), the appellant was convicted of a homicide by a jury. On appeal, he only contended that the failure of counsel to move for a j......
-
Yates v. State
...court to grant a motion for judgment of acquittal.’ ” Starr v. State, 405 Md. 293, 302, 951 A.2d 87 (2008) (quoting Lotharp v. State, 231 Md. 239, 240, 189 A.2d 652 (1963)). When making a motion for judgment of acquittal on one or more counts, a defendant must “state with particularity all ......
-
Rivera v. State
...sufficiency is predicated upon a trial court's denial of a motion for judgment of acquittal.6 See , e.g. , Lotharp v. State , 231 Md. 239, 240, 189 A.2d 652 (1963) (per curiam). That remains true today. Starr v. State , 405 Md. 293, 302, 951 A.2d 87 (2008) (citing Lotharp ).Meanwhile, the C......