Merritt v. State, 84
| Decision Date | 11 December 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 84,84 |
| Citation | 221 Md. 118,156 A.2d 228 |
| Parties | Larry L. MERRITT v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Alex Steinhorn, Baltimore, for appellant.
James H. Norris, Jr., Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen. , for appellee.
Before BRUNE, C. J., and HENDERSON, HAMMOND, PRESCOTT and HORNEY, JJ.
In this appeal are involved two charges of larceny presented in two indictments, one charging the accused with grand larceny, the other with theft, or petit larceny. The defendant appeared in court without counsel, and was tried on the same day that Hill v. State, infra, was decided by this Court. The record fails affirmatively to show a compliance with Rule 723 b and c; consequently, under the authority of Hill v. State, 218 Md. 120, 145 A.2d 445, Bryant v. State, 218 Md. 151, 145 A.2d 777, and Williams v. State, 220 Md. 180, 151 A.2d 721, the judgments and sentences must be reversed. With this ruling in his favor, we deem it unnecessary to consider the other points raised in the appellant's brief.
Judgments reversed, and cases remanded for a new trial, the mayor and city council of Baltimore to pay the costs.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Secor v. Brown
... ... whether, at that hearing, his counsel did not make a statement to the magistrate, after the State had presented its case, that the accused would offer no testimony in support of his plea of not ... Posko v. Climatic Control Corp., 198 Md. 578, 584, 84 A.2d 906; Wanzer v. State, 202 Md. 601, 608, 97 A.2d 914; Thomas v. Hopkins, 209 Md. 321, 327, 121 ... ...
-
Taylor v. State, 354
...lack of an affirmative showing of prejudice to the accused. Taylor v. State, 230 Md. 1, 2, 185 A.2d 197, 198 (1962); Merritt v. State, 221 Md. 118, 119, 156 A.2d 228 (1959); Williams v. State, 220 Md. 180, 181, 151 A.2d 721 (1959); Bryant v. State, 218 Md. 151, 152, 145 A.2d 777 (1958); Hil......
-
Taylor v. State
...218 Md. 120, 145 A.2d 445; Bryant v. State, 218 Md. 151, 145 A.2d 777; Williams v. State, 220 Md. 180, 151 A.2d 721; Merritt v. State, 221 Md. 118, 156 A.2d 228. The judgment must, therefore, be reversed and a new trial Judgment reversed and case remanded for a new trial. ...