Stevens v. State
| Decision Date | 09 November 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 66,66 |
| Citation | 230 Md. 47,185 A.2d 194 |
| Parties | Samuel T. STEVENS, Jr. v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
John W. Pfeifer and Richard Kupfer, Baltimore, for appellant.
Thomas B. Finan, Atty. Gen., Robert F. Sweeney, Asst. Atty. Gen., William J. O'Donnell and James W. McAllister, State's Atty. and Asst. State's Atty., respectively, for Baltimore City, Baltimore, for appellee.
Before BRUNE, C. J., and HENDERSON, PRESCOTT, MARBURY and SYBERT, JJ.
Alleging insufficiency of evidence, Samuel T. Stevens, Jr., appeals from his sentence following conviction by a jury in the Criminal Court of Baltimore for robbery with a deadly weapon. At the trial, the prosecuting witness, Barnes, testified that the appellant grabbed him from behind, threatened him with a knife, and took money from his pocket. An eye witness testified he saw Stevens and Barnes struggle and heard Barnes say he was going to get the police. An officer testified that Barnes complained of the robbery and led him to the scene, where he found a cap which had been worn by Barnes and a knife which Barnes said was like the one which Stevens had used.
At the conclusion of the State's evidence, counsel for appellant moved for a judgment of acquittal, which was denied. Appellant then offered evidence, but failed to renew his motion at the end of the case. In such circumstances we may not review the sufficiency of the evidence. Code (1957), Art. 27, § 593; Woodell v. State, 223 Md. 89, 162 A.2d 468.
Appellant further urges that the failure of court-appointed counsel below, who is not the counsel on this appeal, to renew the motion for a judgment of acquittal at the conclusion of all the evidence and his failure to require an alleged 'key witness' to testify for the defense constituted such incompetency as to deprive the defendant of due process of law.
We find no such deprivation. Although one's constitutional rights may be violated where representation has been so inadequate as to make a farce of the trial, this Court has held that mere errors in trial tactics, including a failure to renew a motion for a verdict of acquittal, does not amount, per se, to inadequate representation. See Woodell v. State, supra; cf. Snead v. Smyth, 273 F.2d 838 (4th Cir. 1962). The record in this case reveals sufficient evidence which, if believed, would support the jury's finding of the appellant's guilt as charged, and hence a request for judgment of acquittal at the close of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hutchinson
...220 Md. 615, 155 A.2d 498, and Woodell v. State, 223 Md. 89, 162 A.2d 468 (1960). (Id. at 156, 186 A.2d at 207.)); Stevens v. State, 230 Md. 47, 50, 185 A.2d 194 (1962), cert. denied, 373 U.S. 940, 83 S.Ct. 1546, 10 L.Ed.2d 695 (1963) (Defendant requested the Court to review certain portion......
-
Ennis v. State
...of acquittal. Humphreys v. State, 227 Md. 115, 175 A.2d 777; Ledbetter v. State, 224 Md. 271, 167 A.2d 596. See also Stevens v. State, 230 Md. 47, 185 A.2d 194. The judgment must therefore be Id. at 240, 189 A.2d at 653. See additionally Kenney v. State, 62 Md.App. 555, 568, 490 A.2d 738 (1......
-
Brown v. State
...in the court below or thereafter, before this appeal. The point can not be raised for the first time here. Maryland Rule 885, Stevens v. State, 230 Md. 47, 185 A.2d 194 (1962). In any event, however, the complaint of inadequate counsel is not supported in the transcript of the record of the......
-
State v. Pullen
...of acquittal, or to make a motion for new trial, do not amount in and of themselves to inadequate representation. See, Stevens v. State, 1962, 230 Md. 47, 185 A.2d 194. Counsel's failure to pursue his cross-examination of the prosecutrix to lay a proper foundation for review, as well as his......