McIntyre v. State

• Decision Date: 03 August 1967
• Docket Number: No. 223,223
• Citation: 1 Md.App. 586,232 A.2d 279
• Parties: William McINTYRE and Arney Davis v. STATE of Maryland.
• Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

Page 586

1 Md.App. 586

232 A.2d 279

William McINTYRE and Arney Davis v. STATE of Maryland.

No. 223.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.

Aug. 3, 1967.

Certiorari Denied Nov. 16, 1967.

Archie D. Williams, Baltimore, for appellants.

Alan M. Wilner, Asst. Atty. Gen., Francis B. Burch, Atty. Gen., Charles E. Moylan, Jr., State's Atty. for Baltimore City, John Hackett, Asst State's Atty. for Baltimore City, Baltimore, on brief, for appellee.

Before ANDERSON, MORTON, ORTH, and THOMPSON, JJ., and WILLIAM J. O'DONNELL, Special Judge.

PER CURIAM.

The Appellants, William McIntyre and Arney Davis, were convicted of disorderly conduct and resisting arrest by a jury in the Criminal Court of Baltimore. Judge J. Gilbert Prendergast presided and imposed consecutive sentences of thirty days and not more than three years in the Maryland Correctional Institution on the respective convictions.

On February 16, 1966, at about 9:30 p.m. Officers Thomas and Hax of the Baltimore City Police Department were on routine patrol when they noticed a group of teenagers in front of a restaurant. According to the Officers, the group was loud and using profanity; and the police had previously received a number of calls from the owner of the restaurant requesting that such groups be kept away from the front of the establishment. After the group failed to heed Officer Thomas' directive to disperse, which was issued from the police car, he alighted therefrom and repeated his order. All left with the exception of the Appellant, Davis, 'who stated he didn't have to leave and he wasn't doing anything'. When he refused to move along with the rest of the group and started using abusive and profane language, Officer Thomas placed him under arrest. While Officer Hax was calling for a patrol wagon, the Appellant, McIntyre, 'ran' between Officer Thomas and Davis, thereby enabling Davis to run away. Officer Thomas pursued Davis and caught him within a half block when Davis fell down. He was again placed under arrest and by this time a large crowd had congregated. According to Officer Thomas: 'William McIntyre the whole time, Arney was only struggling to get away-all this time William McIntyre was trying to take the prisoner from me. * * * I'm struggling with Arney (Appellant Davis), I'm trying to keep the crowd off, people are throwing rocks and bottles * * * Arney had broke away from me again; McIntyre is on top of me. He takes a swing and hits me in the jaw. At the same time somebody else throws a bottle and hit me in the head * * * and I grabbed McIntyre because Arney was gone. I placed him under arrest then. He took another swing at me under arrest.' About this time, additional cruise cars descended on the scene; McIntyre was finally subdued and placed in one of the cars; Davis was apprehended at a later date.

In this appeal the Appellants contend that the lower court erred in refusing to propound the following question to the jury as a part of the voir dire examination:

'Is any member of the panel sufficiently familiar with the law of arrest in Maryland as it had been pronounced by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, so as to be able to determine, upon a given set of facts, whether or not an arrest made in Maryland is lawful or unlawful?'

It is argued that since the jury in a criminal case under our State Constitution is judge of both the law and facts, and since the legality of the Appellants' arrest was an issue in their cases, they were entitled to ascertain whether a 'prospective juror was incompetent to perform his constitutional duty.'

No authority is cited by the Appellants, and we are not aware of any, which holds that a lack of knowledge of the intricate tenets of the law constitutes a ground for disqualifying a prospective juror; and since we believe that such a requirement is not necessary to serve the ends of justice, we hold that the Appellants' contention in this regard...