Shenberger v. State
| Decision Date | 09 April 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 257,257 |
| Citation | 234 Md. 363,199 A.2d 233 |
| Parties | George Nick SHENBERGER v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Howard G. Reamer, Baltimore, for appellant.
Robert F. Sweeney, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Thomas B. Finan, Atty. Gen., William J. O'Donnell and William S. Swisher, State's Atty. and Asst. State's Atty., respectively, for Baltimore City on the brief), for appellee.
Before HENDERSON, HAMMOND, HORNEY, MARBURY and SYBERT, JJ.
The only contention now made by the appellant is that the evidence was insufficient to permit an inference that the assault he made on his wife was with an intent to murder, the crime with which he was charged and of which Judge Sodaro, sitting without a jury, found him guilty.
There was testimony that appellant lured his estranged wife into the cellar of her home and then put a loaded gun, which he had bought the day before, at her ear, telling her that after he had used it on her he was going to turn it on himself. At this point a neighbor, who was returning shampoo she had borrowed from the wife, distracted the appellant and the wife was able to knock the gun from her husband's hand, whereupon, according to the wife, he hit her and kicked her and struggled with her in an effort 'to point the gun back towards me.'
If the trier of facts believed the facts to be as the wife and the neighbors said they were, as he seemingly did, he properly could have found that the pointing of the deadly weapon at the head and the expressed intention to kill, followed by the struggle to again point the gun at the wife established the necessary elements of the crime of assault with intent to murder. Had death ensued, the evidence would clearly have supported a finding of malice and of commission of the crime of murder. Marks v. State, 230 Md. 108, 112, 185 A.2d 909; Beall v. State, 203 Md. 380, 101 A.2d 233.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Glenn v. State
...of malice: McFadden v. State, 2 Md.App. 725, 237 A.2d 93 (1968); Morgan v. State, 4 Md.App. 351, 242 A.2d 831 (1968); Shenberger v. State, 234 Md. 363, 199 A.2d 233 (1964); Bird v. State, 231 Md. 432, 190 A.2d 804 (1963); Perez v. State, 7 Md.App. 452, 256 A.2d 369 (1969); and Tate v. State......
-
Brown v. State, 1632
...other basis for the inference. One such basis may be a contemporaneously expressed threat to shoot the victim. See Shenberger v. State, 234 Md. 363, 364, 199 A.2d 233 (1964), where the defendant put a loaded gun to the victim's ear, told her that "after he had used it on her he was going to......
-
Hutchinson v. State
...See Morrison v. State, 234 Md. 87, 88, 198 A.2d 246 (1964); Ferrell v. State, 234 Md. 355, 356, 199 A.2d 362 (1964); Shenberger v. State, 234 Md. 363, 199 A.2d 233 (1964); and Wilt v. State, 234 Md. 365, 199 A.2d 232 We find that there was ample evidence before the Court to sustain a findin......
-
Graham v. State
...pointing of the weapon--and that clearly, is not enough." Id. at 333, 494 A.2d 999. The Court of Appeals, in Shenberger v. State, 234 Md. 363, 199 A.2d 233 (1964), considered whether the words used by appellant were sufficient to show the requisite intent. In that case, the defendant put a ......