Tann v. State
Decision Date | 11 October 1979 |
Docket Number | No. 14,14 |
Citation | 43 Md.App. 544,406 A.2d 448 |
Parties | Bruce Lee TANN v. STATE of Maryland. |
Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Alan H. Murrell, Public Defender, and Michael R. Malloy, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.
Stephen H. Sachs, Atty. Gen., Kathleen M. Sweeney, Asst. Atty. Gen., William A. Swisher, State's Atty. for Baltimore City, and Gary S. Bernstein, Asst. State's Atty. for Baltimore City, for appellee.
Submitted to MORTON, THOMPSON and MOORE, JJ.
Bruce Lee Tann, the appellant, was convicted of transporting a handgun in violation of Md. Code, Ann., Art. 27, § 36B 1 by the Criminal Court of Baltimore, Judge Shirley B. Jones presiding without a jury. A sentence of three years was imposed. In his appeal appellant presents the following questions:
On February 1, 1978, at about 2:30 a. m. Officer Cole of the Baltimore City Police saw a car circle the block on which an all night carry out shop was located. Within the next hour the car passed the carry out shop three times. When the car stopped in a nearby parking lot Cole requested reinforcements who came and blocked the car. At trial, Cole testified that when he asked the men to step out of the car he saw the appellant, who was seated in the back seat, drop a handgun to the floor of the car. A second gun was found on the floor on the passenger side of the front seat of the car. Both guns were loaded. Warren Nelson was the driver of the car and William McCoy was a passenger in the front seat. The three co-defendants' trial was set for June 28, 1978, but before that date, McCoy escaped from the City Jail and neither his co-defendants nor the State knew where he was on the day of the trial. The State agreed to a postponement requested by defense counsel. A few days before November 2, 1978, when the case was rescheduled for trial, the State informed appellant's counsel that McCoy was in the hands of federal authorities in North Carolina. At trial the State objected to another postponement and the administrative judge denied appellant's request for postponement.
Appellant and Nelson testified that the three men had gone to pick up a friend of McCoy's who would be getting off the bus near the carry out shop. Appellant testified, denying that the car circled the block on which the carry out shop was located and denying he was in possession of a gun.
The first two issues on appeal are both related to the absence of McCoy as a witness. Appellant argues that the administrative judge abused his discretion in declining to grant a postponement in order to obtain the presence of McCoy and that the trial judge abused her discretion by failing to grant a new trial because of the administrative judge's error in denying the postponement. In the absence of a record as to what transpired before the administrative judge there is nothing to review. See Lang v. Catterton, 267 Md. 268, 274, 297 A.2d 735, 739 (1972) and Casson v. Joyce, 28 Md.App. 634, 638, 346 A.2d 683 (1975). We will, however, review the action of the trial judge in denying the motion for a new trial, but it should be noted that the denial of a motion for a new trial is almost never reversed on appeal. Crawford v. State, 37 Md.App. 1, 375 A.2d 240 (1977), Aff'd, 282 Md. 210, 383 A.2d 1097 (1978). In making the ruling in the present case the judge said:
We see no abuse of discretion. Although we have found no Maryland case in point, cases from other jurisdictions have held that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion by not granting a postponement when the absent witness was a co-defendant. In Funderburk v. State, 219 Miss. 596, 69 So.2d 496 (1954) the defendant asked for a continuance because of the absence of a witness who was a co-defendant. In that case, the co-defendant was also a fugitive from justice. The court reasoned that the continuance was properly refused because the absent witness, as a co-defendant, could not be compelled to testify.
In State v. Cain, 307 So.2d 621 (La.1975) the court held that the denial of a postponement was proper because the absent witness, also a fugitive from justice, was a co-defendant. The court stated that nothing in the record indicated that either of the co-defendants would have testified that the contraband belonged to them, or that either would waive his privilege against self-incrimination. Thus, the trial court correctly...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Davis v. State
...is undisputed that Jerquan was not going to waive his Fifth Amendment privilege and testify at appellant's trial. In Tann v. State, 43 Md.App. 544, 548, 406 A.2d 448 (1979), this Court held “that where the absent witness is also a co-defendant and there is no showing that he will waive his ......
-
Simmons v. State
...rather it was a decision of informed defense counsel after exploring what the probable testimony would be. Again, in Tann v. State, 43 Md.App. 544, 406 A.2d 448 (Md.), the refusal to grant a new trial instead of awaiting the production of a co-indictee in an escapee status was held proper w......