Lucas v. State

• Decision Date: 07 December 1967
• Docket Number: No. 59,59
• Citation: 2 Md.App. 590,235 A.2d 780
• Parties: Waddell LUCAS v. STATE of Maryland.
• Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

Page 590

2 Md.App. 590

235 A.2d 780

Waddell LUCAS v. STATE of Maryland.

No. 59.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.

Dec. 7, 1967.

Certiorari Denied March 12, 1968.

Morris Lee Kaplan, Baltimore, Michael Lee Kaplan, Baltimore, on brief, for appellant.

William B. Whiteford, Asst. Atty. Gen., Francis B. Burch, Atty. Gen., William B. Whiteford, Asst. Atty. Gen., Charles E. Moylan, Jr., State's Atty. for Baltimore City, Leroy Carroll, Asst. State's Atty. for Baltimore City, for appellee.

Before MURPHY, C. J., and ANDERSON, MORTON, ORTH, and THOMPSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Waddell Lucas, was indicted for rape and for robbery with a deadly weapon. On October 26, 1966, appellant was tried in the Criminal Court of Baltimore City by Judge Meyer M. Cardin sitting without a jury. Appellant was found guilty of rape and the robbery indictment was placed on the Stet Docket. Appellant was sentenced to five years in the Maryland Penitentiary.

Appellant raises two contentions on appeal:

1. That the trial court erred in not granting the Motions for Directed Verdict of Acquittal.

2. The verdict was against the weight of the evidence.

On March 22, 1966, appellant and his brother went to the apartment of Miss Lucille Baker purportedly to check on mail that may have been delivered there for them. The brothers had vacated the premises prior to Miss Baker's occupancy. Miss Baker allowed the Lucas brothers into the apartment and allowed appellant's brother to use the bathroom. The brother returned from the bathroom with a knife and, together with the appellant, threatened Miss Baker and the four infant children in her care with physical violence unless she submitted to sexual intercourse with them. Because of the threats of harm to herself and the children, Miss Baker submitted to intercourse with both the appellant and his brother. She testified that she did not scream or attempt to escape because of fear for herself and the children.

After the attack, both appellant and his brother left the apartment and Miss Baker went to local store and called the police. An examination by Dr. George Wells revealed recent sexual intercourse.

Appellant admitted having sexual relations with Miss Baker, but contended it was with her consent.

At the conclusion of the State's case, a Motion for Judgment of Acquittal was made by the appellant, but was denied by the trial court. Subsequent thereto, the appellant took the stand in his own behalf and thus withdrew his motion. Maryland Rules of Procedure 755(b); Loker v. State, 2 Md.App. 1, 233 A.2d 342; McGlothlin v. State, 1 Md.App. 256, 229 A.2d 428.

As to the appellant's contention that the lower court erred by not granting his renewed motion for acquittal at the close of the entire case the court is of the opinion that it is redundant and merges with his second contention, that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the conviction. McGlothlin v State, supra, at page 261, 229 A.2d 428. In non-jury trials, the weight of the evidence and credibility of the witnesses is for the trial judge to determine. Sadler v. State, 1 Md.App. 383, 230 A.2d 372; Dunlap v. State, 1 Md.App. 444, 230 A.2d 690. In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, this Court determines whether the court below has sufficient evidence from which it could be fairly convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt. Hutchinson v. State, 1 Md.App. 362, 230 A.2d 352; Howard v. State, 1 Md.App. 379, 230 A.2d 115; Sadler v. State, supra; Dunlap v. State, supra.

Here, there was legally sufficient evidence from which the trial court could fairly be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of the appellant's guilt. While it is true that force is an essential element of the crime of rape, force may exist without violence. Submission to a compelling force, or as the result of being put in fear, is not consent. Consent is absent where the prosecutrix was so overcome and terrified by threats as to overpower her will to resist. Hazel v....