Sample v. State, 425
| Decision Date | 08 July 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 425,425 |
| Citation | 235 Md. 554,201 A.2d 797 |
| Parties | Alexander SAMPLE v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Russell J. White, Baltimore, for appellant.
John W. Sause, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen. (Thomas B. Finan, Atty. Gen., William J. O'Donnell and Andrew J. Graham, State's Atty. and Asst. State's Atty., respectively, for Baltimore City on the brief), for appellee.
Before BRUNE, C. J., and HENDERSON, HAMMOND, PRESCOTT, HORNEY, MARBURY and SYBERT, JJ.
The appellant, Alexander Sample, was sentenced to life imprisonment after being convicted of first degree murder in a nonjury trial in the Criminal Court of Baltimore. On this appeal he raises only the question whether there was sufficient evidence upon which the trial court could be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, that the homicide was committed with deliberation and premeditation. We think this question must be answered in the affirmative.
The finding of fact by the trial court, sitting without a jury, that the evidence showed deliberation and premeditation beyond a reasonable doubt, will not be set aside by this Court unless clearly erroneous. Maryland Rule 886 a; Cummings v. State, 223 Md. 606, 610-611, 165 A.2d 886. It was conceded that the appellant armed himself with a butcher knife when he left his home to look for the victim, who, a short time previously, had been involved in a fight with the appellant's brother. There was testimony that when the appellant found the victim he waved the knife and struck at him, but apparently missed. The victim then ran down an alley but was pursued by the appellant and another fight ensued during which the victim was stabbed twice. Several witnesses testified that they saw the appellant standing over the victim in the alley with a knife in his hand, and one witness stated that he saw the appellant 'bring the knife up and down about two or three times'. This evidence, and the proper and rational inferences therefrom, were such that the trial court could be fairly convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant had acted with premeditation and deliberation, and we cannot say that it was clearly in error in so finding. Cf. Hyde v. State, 228 Md. 209, 215-217, 179 A.2d 421.
The appellant argues that the incident happened too quickly for him to have had time to form a design to kill. But we have said, '[i]f the killing is not the instant effect of impulse, if there is hesitation or doubt to be overcome, a choice made as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. State
...but whether there was sufficient relevant evidence properly before the trier of the facts to sustain the conviction. Sample v. State, 235 Md. 554, 201 A.2d 797 (1964); Tull v. State, 230 Md. 596, 604, 188 A.2d 150 (1963); Lee v. State, 224 Md. 260, 167 A.2d 595 (1961) and cases therein cite......
-
Sample v. Warden, Md. Penitentiary
...only one issue, dealing with sufficiency of evidence. The Court of Appeals, on July 8, 1964, affirmed the lower court. Sample v. State, 235 Md. 554, 201 A.2d 797 (1964). On July 17, 1964, applicant filed a one-page handwritten petition seeking relief under the Uniform Post Conviction Proced......