Piles v. State
| Decision Date | 06 February 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 184,184 |
| Citation | 233 Md. 487,197 A.2d 238 |
| Parties | Walter Thomas PILES v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Thomas R. Brooks, Hyattsville, for appellant.
Franklin Goldstein, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Thomas B. Finan, Atty. Gen., Baltimore, and Arthur A. Marshall, Jr., and Richard E. Painter, State's Atty. and Deputy State's Atty., respectively, for Prince George's County, Upper Marlboro, on the brief), for appellee.
Before BRUNE, C. J., and HENDERSON, PRESCOTT, HORNEY and SYBERT, JJ.
Appellant was convicted of robbery with a deadly weapon by a jury in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County.
He complains (1) of the trial court's refusal to propound a question to the jury on voir dire; (2) a portion of the judge's advisory instructions; (3) that he was illegally arrested; (4) there was a 'denial of due process of law'; (5) and he was not given the 'benefit of doubt.'
I
The proposed voir dire question, in substance, would have asked the prospective jurors if the fact that the defendant had a 'serious criminal record' would prevent them from giving him a fair and impartial trial based solely on the evidence. We have held many times that since there are no statutes nor precise rules regulating the procedure (cf. Maryland Rule 745), 'the nature and extent of voir dire examination rests in the sound discretion of the trial court.' Grogg v. State, 231 Md. 530, 191 A.2d 435; Connor v. State, 225 Md. 543, 171 A.2d 699, 86 A.L.R.2d 892, aff'd 368 U.S. 906, 82 S.Ct. 186, 7 L.Ed.2d 100; McGee v. State, 219 Md. 53, 146 A.2d 194. We cannot say the trial judge abused his discretion in refusing to ask the question, especially in view of his instructions to the jury, a portion of which will be quoted under II. Furthermore, the question is substantially encompassed within the general oath taken by all jurors in a criminal case in Maryland.
II
Here, appellant challenges the following passage in the court's instructions: Appellant had taken the stand and testified for himself; he had a previous criminal record.
The instructions of the court, we think, correctly stated the law. Braun v. State, 230 Md. 82, 185 A.2d 905. Cf. Stevens v. State, 230 Md. 47, 185 A.2d 194, cert. den., 373 U.S. 940, 83 S.Ct. 1546, 10 L.Ed.2d 695. Moreover, no objection was made at the trial to the court's instructions. Maryland Rule 756 f. We find no error here.
III, IV and V.
These arguments are presented by the appellant--not by his counsel--but they have been carefully considered. First, he claims that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Colvin v. State
...denied, 368 U.S. 906, 82 S.Ct. 186, 7 L.Ed.2d 100 (1961); see also Langley v. State, 281 Md. 337, 378 A.2d 1338 (1977); Piles v. State, 233 Md. 487, 197 A.2d 238 (1964); Grogg v. State, 231 Md. 530, 191 A.2d 435 (1963). Moreover, when considering the position appellant urges this Court to a......
-
Bane v. State
...trial the court did give a cautionary instruction concerning the use by the jury of appellant's prior conviction. See, Piles v. State, 233 Md. 487, 197 A.2d 238 (1964).7 The danger of a trier of fact drawing an improper inference from evidence of admitted prior convictions has led the Court......
-
Boone v. State
...unless the fact of the prior conviction is clearly irrelevant. Nelson v. Seiler, 154 Md. 63, 69, 139 A. 564. * * *' In Piles v. State, 233 Md. 487, 197 A.2d 238 (1964), the Court of Appeals approved an instruction which advised the jury '* * * '(P)ast convictions of the accused are to be co......
-
Holbrook v. State
...convicted of a serious crime is more likely to tell an untruth than a man who has never been convicted of a serious crime.' Piles v. State, 233 Md. 487, 197 A.2d 238; Culver v. State, 1 Md.App. 406, 230 A.2d 361. The statement, 'the reason that a man's record is brought out, if he takes the......