State v. Smith
Decision Date | 09 May 2003 |
Docket Number | No. 91,91 |
Citation | 374 Md. 527,823 A.2d 664 |
Parties | STATE of Maryland v. Deshawn Lamont SMITH. |
Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Gary E. Bair, Solicitor General (J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Atty. Gen., on brief), Baltimore, for petitioner.
Geraldine K. Sweeney, Asst. Public Defender (Stephen E. Harris, Public Defender, on brief), Baltimore, for respondent.
Argued before BELL, C.J., ELDRIDGE, RAKER, WILNER, CATHELL, HARRELL and BATTAGLIA, JJ.
On February 22, 2001, Deshawn Lamont Smith, respondent, after a bench trial in the Circuit Court for Harford County was convicted of transporting a handgun.1 Respondent was sentenced to a term of three years of incarceration, with all but 30 days suspended.
On February 23, 2001, respondent appealed his conviction to the Court of Special Appeals. On appeal, respondent asserted that there was insufficient evidence to sustain his conviction. On August 27, 2002, after hearing the case en banc, the intermediate appellate court reversed the decision of the Circuit Court. Smith v. State, 145 Md.App. 400, 805 A.2d 1108 (2002).
On December 11, 2002, we granted the State's Petition for Writ of Certiorari. State v. Smith, 372 Md. 132, 812 A.2d 288 (2002). The State, petitioner, presents one question for our review:
"Did the Court of Special Appeals incorrectly hold that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction of the lessee driver of a vehicle for transporting a handgun, where the gun was found in the trunk of the car under a jacket belonging to one of the two passengers also in the car?"
We reverse the Court of Special Appeals and answer yes to petitioner's question. We hold that the evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom were sufficient to sustain the conviction of respondent for the crime of transporting a handgun. We shall additionally hold that, generally, a person's status as a owner or lessee/driver of a vehicle can support an inference by a fact-finder that the owner or lessee/driver has knowledge of the contents of the vehicle he or she is operating.2
We adopt the facts as set forth in the intermediate appellate court's plurality opinion in this case:3
rev'd on other grounds, 330 Md. 261, 623 A.2d 648 (1993).
The following cases further emphasize a trial judge's or a jury's ability to choose among differing inferences that might possibly be made from a factual situation and the deference we must give in that regard to the inferences a fact-finder may draw. Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319,99 S.Ct. at 2789,61 L.Ed.2d at 573 ( ); Jones v. State, 343 Md. 448, 460, 682 A.2d 248, 254 (1996) ) ; In re Timothy F., 343 Md. 371, 379-80, 681 A.2d 501, 504-05 (1996) ( ); McMillian v. State, 325 Md. 272, 281-82, 600 A.2d 430, 434-35 (1992) ( ); see also Riddick v. State, 319 Md. 180, 183, 571 A.2d 1239, 1241 (1990)
.
In State v. Raines, 326 Md. 582, 590-93, 606 A.2d 265, 269-70 (1992), we stated:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Westley v. State
...of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.’ " Perry v. State , 229 Md. App. 687, 696, 146 A.3d 529 (2016) (quoting State v. Smith , 374 Md. 527, 533, 823 A.2d 664 (2003) ). The standard of review for legal sufficiency of evidence is not demanding. See McKenzie v. State , 407 Md. 120, 136, 962 ......
-
O'Sullivan v. State
...the credibility of witnesses and resolving any conflicts in the evidence are tasks proper for the fact finder," State v. Smith , 374 Md. 527, 533-34, 823 A.2d 664 (2003) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), and, upon review, the evidence must be viewed "in the light most favorab......
-
Butler v. State
...might possibly be made from a factual situation.’ " State v. Manion , 442 Md. 419, 431, 112 A.3d 506 (2015) (quoting State v. Smith , 374 Md. 527, 534, 823 A.2d 664 (2003) ). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State—that Butler admitted to English that he "went for" the......
-
Owens v. State
...guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); see State v. Smith, 374 Md. 527, 533, 823 A.2d 664 (2003); Moye v. State, 369 Md. 2, 12, 796 A.2d 821 (2002); Winder v. State, 362 Md. 275, 325, 765 A.2d 97 (2001); State v. Sowel......