Mock v. State, 69
| Decision Date | 29 January 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 69,69 |
| Citation | 237 A.2d 811,2 Md.App. 771 |
| Parties | Kenneth C. MOCK v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
William J. Bowan, III, Bockville, for appellant.
Dickee M. Howard, Asst. Atty. Gen., Baltimore, Francis B. Burch, Atty. Gen., Baltimore, Leonard T. Kardy, State's Atty. for Montgomery County, Ronald F. McDonald, Jr., Asst. State's, Atty., for Montgomery County, Rockville, for appellee.
Before MURPHY, C. J., and MORTON, ORTH and THOMPSON, JJ.
The appellant, Kenneth C. Mock, was convicted of murder in the second degree by a jury in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County and sentenced to eighteen years in the Maryland Penitentiary. His only contention on this appeal is that the trial judge erred in failing to instruct the jury, as requested, that if it found that the defendant did not harbor malice by reason of being under the influence of alcohol, or if the jury had a reasonable doubt whether he harbored malice, it could not find him guilty of a higher offense than manslaughter.
The evidence adduced at the trial established that the appellant was a roomer in the home of the seventy-five year old decedent, Elzey Allunt. On Sunday, April 3, 1966, the appellant, returning from a weekend trip to his parent's home in Pennsylvania, during which trip he consumed two vodka collins, arrived at the decedent's home between 7:30 and 8:30 p.m. Upon his return, he immediately drove to a delicatessen and had three mugs of beer. At about 9:50 p.m., he went to a restaurant where he drank five draft beers, leaving there at approximately midnight, after which he met his fiancee, Dolores Beauch, in a parking lot in which his car was parked.
Miss Beauch testified that the appellant's speech was then slurred, that he was not walking well, and that in her opinion he was drunk. After about forty-five minutes, the appellant got into his car and drove on the wrong side of the road with a flat tire. Miss Beauch followed him since she believed he was drunk, and she wanted to see that he got home safely. At one point, she got out of her car at a traffic light to tell the appellant to drive carefully. She testified that at that time 'he seemed to be in a daze and he numbled something.'
The appellant returned to the decedent's home about 1:00 a.m., at which time an argument ensued between the appellant and the decedent concerning the appellant's weekend trip. Appellant testified that the decedent referred to his family and fiancee in insulting terms, that she slapped him on the back, and he, in return, slapped her once on the cheek and once in the mouth. After the first slap, the decedent fell against the wall to the floor and after the second she sat on the bed with her head on the pillow, crying and holding her face. The decedent ordered the appellant out of her house at approximately 2:00 a.m. Before leaving appellant called Suburban Hospital to inquire about care for the decedent since he knew she was in 'bad shape.' The appellant then drove to Pennsylvania. Appellant stated that during this period he was 'feeling the beer' and was 'high' but that he wasn't drunk.
Two roomers residing in Mrs. Allnut's home testified that they heard some conversation between the decedent and appellant coming from the decedent's bedroom, but that nothing held them to believe that anything unusual had taken place. No screams or yells were heard by them.
The decedent was discovered in her room the next day. She was bruised and badly beaten, and as a result of physical violence to her head, she died on April 19, 1966.
As heretofore indicated, the appellant requested and the court refused to give, the following instruction to the jury:
It is, of course, incumbent upon the court, when requested in a criminal case, to give an advisory instruction on every essential question or point of law supported by the evidence. Bruce v State, 218 Md. 87, 145 A.2d 428; Huber v. State, 2 Md.App. 245, 234 A.2d 264; Tipton v. State, 1 Md.App. 556, 232 A.2d 289. While...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Evans v. State
...not legally sufficient to generate a legitimate jury issue in that regard. Bateman v. State, 10 Md.App. 630, 272 A.2d 64; Mock v. State, 2 Md.App. 771, 237 A.2d 811. We have held that an instruction should not be given on the subject of insanity where the evidence, by whomsoever produced, i......
-
Smith v. State
...79 Md.App. at 8, 555 A.2d 509 (holding that trial court did not err in not giving a voluntary intoxication instruction); Mock v. State, 2 Md.App. 771, 775, 237 A.2d 811 (1968) (upholding trial court's decision not to give a voluntary intoxication instruction); see also State v. Gover, 267 M......
-
Wood v. State
...defendant] lost control to such an extent as to render him unable to appreciate the consequences of his actions.”); Mock v. State, 2 Md.App. 771, 775, 237 A.2d 811 (1968) (This Court held that the evidence—that “over approximately a ten-hour period the [defendant] consumed two vodka drinks ......
-
Cox v. State
...299 Md. 425, 474 A.2d 218 (1984); Bateman v. State, 10 Md.App. 630, 637, 272 A.2d 64, cert. denied, 261 Md. 721 (1971); Mock v. State, 2 Md.App. 771, 774-75, 237 A.2d 811 cert. denied, 250 Md. 732 (1968), in support of that assertion. From this unsound proposition of law, based upon a misre......