Reeves v. State
| Decision Date | 13 March 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 152,152 |
| Citation | 168 A.2d 353,224 Md. 436 |
| Parties | Charles James REEVES v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Charles H. Wheatley, III, Baltimore, for appellant.
James O'C. Gentry, Asst. Atty. Gen. (C. Ferdinand Sybert, Atty. Gen., Saul A. Harris and Charles E. Moylan, Jr., State's Atty. and Asst. State's Atty., Baltimore, on the brief), for appellee.
Before HENDERSON, HAMMOND, PRESCOTT, HORNEY, and MARBURY, JJ.
The trial court, sitting without a jury, found the appellant guilty of rape and sentenced him to life imprisonment in the penitentiary. On this appeal he presents three questions: (1) Did the Court abuse its discretion in failing to require the production of the bottle neck and fragments as required by a subpoena duces tecum when the same were essential to the State's case, thereby making a complete consideration of a motion for new trial impossible; (2) was the Court sitting as a trier of the facts misled by the inaccurate statement of material facts by the State and its witnesses so that the appellant was precluded from receiving a trial free from prejudicial error; and (3) did the appellant receive an adequate defense as required by due process under the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution?
As to the first question, the appellant contends that the Supreme Bench of Baltimore City, in hearing the motion for new trial, abused its discretion in not considering and viewing the fragments of the broken pint Vodka bottle which was the weapon employed to intimidate the victim and to cause her submission. The record does not affirmatively show that the broken bottle fragments were introduced at the trial but their size and condition were described and the fact that no fingerprints were found on them or anywhere in the victim's apartment was revealed. At that time it was reported that the fragments had been lost, but it later developed that the police had the fragments and the appellant obtained a photograph thereof, which was included in the transcript although not put in evidence below. Moreover, the appellant in his defense, relied not upon the consent of the victim, but upon insufficiency of identity. From the above facts we can find no prejudice in the absence of the bottle fragments at the hearing of the motion for a new trial. Winkler v. State, 194 Md. 1, 69 A.2d 674, certiorari denied 339 U.S. 919, 70 S.Ct. 621, 94 L.Ed. 1343; Givner v. State, 208 Md. 1, 115 A.2d 714; Ford v. Warden, 214...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reeves v. State
...of sentence in accordance with this opinion; judgment otherwise affirmed. 1 This conviction was affirmed on appeal. Reeves v. State, 224 Md. 436, 168 A.2d 353, Cert. Den., 368 U.S. 865, 82 S.Ct. 113, 7 L.Ed.2d 62. Post Conviction relief was denied on November 5, 1962, and Application for Le......
-
Reeves v. Warden, Maryland Penitentiary, Civ. No. 13418.
...all of which were discussed briefly in the opinion of the Court of Appeals. The judgment was affirmed on March 13, 1961. Reeves v. State, 224 Md. 436, 168 A.2d 353. A writ of certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court on October 9, 1961. Reeves v. Maryland, 368 U.S. 865, 82 S.Ct. 113, 7 L.E......
-
Reeves v. Warden, Maryland Penitentiary
...the yellow note. A motion by Reeves for a new trial was denied on April 2, 1960, and his conviction was affirmed on appeal. Reeves v. State, 224 Md. 436, 168 A.2d 353, cert. denied, 368 U.S. 865, 82 S.Ct. 113, 7 L.Ed.2d 62 (1961). An appropriate petition for relief under the Maryland Post C......
-
Scott v. First Nat. Bank of Baltimore
... ... as to require that his knowledge of its existence be proved in order to render it valid.' The court further said: 'We have no statute in this state changing the common law in such a situation ... as the one before us, and our courts have jurisdiction in equity to enforce the agreement by ... ...