Smallwood v. State

Decision Date03 March 1958
Docket NumberNo. 152,152
Citation139 A.2d 242,216 Md. 16
PartiesEugene SMALLWOOD v. STATE of Maryland.
CourtMaryland Court of Appeals

John H. T. Briscoe, Leonardtown, for appellant.

C. Ferdinand Sybert, Atty. Gen., Stedman Prescott, Jr., Deputy Atty. Gen., and Walter B. Dorsey, State's Atty. St. Mary's County, Leonardtown, for appellee.

Before BRUNE, C. J., and HENDERSON, HAMMOND, PRESCOTT and HORNEY, JJ.

PRESCOTT, Judge.

Eugene Smallwood, a Negro man, was convicted of the crime of common law rape by a jury in the Circuit Court for Charles County, and sentenced by Judges Digges and Dorsey to life imprisonment. The appellant was indicted in St. Mary's County, but, at his request, the trial was removed to Charles County. From this conviction and sentence, he has appealed.

The single question presented is: Was the evidence offered by the State sufficient to identify the defendant so as to sustain his conviction for the crime of rape?

When this Court is called upon to review the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction in a criminal case tried before a jury, we do not inquire into and measure the weight of the evidence to ascertain whether the State has proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, but determine if there be any relevant evidence given to the jury which would properly sustain the conviction. Briley v. State, 212 Md. 445, 447, 129 A.2d 689.

The State offered, inter alia, the following testimony. The prosecuting witness was a housewife, forty-seven years of age, who resided in a trailer in St. Mary's County. She testified to these facts. On December 6, 1956, around 8:00 or 9:00 p.m., she left her trailer and started to walk down the road to Hood's Market Bar, in order to purchase some bread and milk. When she had 'gone a pretty good distance down the road,' a car came up and stopped. It contained two male Negro passengers, and one of them inquired if she wanted to ride. At that time, it was dark and she could not tell 'who it was' so she said, 'No, thanks just the same.' Another car went by and she observed a birthmark or scar on the left side of one of the men's faces. One of them she judged to be between 25 and 30 years of age; the other older. She was again asked if she did not want to ride and she replied, 'No, if I did, I would not ride with a darn Negro.' The men proceeded on, and, after a short interval, she continued walking down the road. She had not gone far when she was accosted by two men on foot, whom she took to be the same men who were in the automobile. The younger one tole the older to 'grab' her and said, 'Slap your hand over her mouth, don't let her scream.' The older of the two did this. This was the one who had the scar on his cheek, and she again noticed it. The younger man told the older to take her across the road. She started to 'holler again,' and 'he hit a hand over (her) mouth again.' Then they both took hold of her and 'dragged' her across the road. She 'struggled' and 'kicked the best she could.' When she kicked, the younger one 'let (her) have it, right here.' When he hit her, she became dazed, and lost the power to resist them. During the struggle she lost her shoes. The younger one said, 'I heard what you said back there, I don't like it, so you won't ride with Negroes?' The appellant, who was the younger man, then 'laid down on top' of her. She could only see their faces by the reflection from a lighted billboard nearby, but she...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Smallwood v. Warden, Maryland Penitentiary
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • May 24, 1962
    ...witness; the illegal search and seizure point was not mentioned. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment and sentence. Smallwood v. State, 216 Md. 16, 139 A.2d 242. Smallwood's own petition for certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court. Smallwood v. Maryland, 357 U.S. 912, 78 S.Ct. 1160......
  • Domneys v. State
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • July 24, 1962
    ...circumstances would not amount to consent, as a matter of law. Cf. Merchant v. State, 217 Md. 61, 70, 141 A.2d 487, and Smallwood v. State, 216 Md. 16, 17, 139 A.2d 242. A supplemental brief, filed by other counsel, contends that the trial court committed reversible error in ruling, in cham......
  • Tull v. State
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • February 12, 1963
    ...doubt, but whether there was any relevant evidence properly before the jury which would sustain the conviction. Smallwood v. State, 216 Md. 16, 17, 139 A.2d 242, cert. den. 357 U.S. 912, 78 S.Ct. 1160, 2 L.Ed.2d 1162; Briley v. State, 212 Md. 445, 129 A.2d 689. Counsel for appellant raises ......
  • Shorey v. State
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • January 23, 1962
    ...correspondence between blood stains and blood types, and the other circumstances, that he was in fact the assailant. Cf. Smallwood v. State, 216 Md. 16, 19, 139 A.2d 242. The jury was not required to accept his alibi. Shockley v. State, 218 Md. 491, 497, 148 A.2d 371. Cf. Kier v. State, 216......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT