Thomas v. State, 110
Decision Date | 25 March 1955 |
Docket Number | No. 110,110 |
Citation | 112 A.2d 913,206 Md. 575 |
Parties | William C. THOMAS v. STATE of Maryland. |
Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Bernard J. Flynn, Baltimore (U. Theodore Hayes, Baltimore, on the brief), for appellant.
Stedman Prescott, Asst. Atty. Gen. (C. Ferdinand Sybert, Atty. Gen., Anselm Sodaro, State's Atty., Baltimore City, J. Robert Brown and Julius A. Romano, Asst. State's Attys., Baltimore, on the brief), for appellee.
Before BRUNE, C. J., and DELAPLAINE, and COLLINS, JJ.
This is an appeal by William C. Thomas, appellant, from a judgment and sentence of death for murder in the first degree.
Four indictments were returned against the appellant on February 11, 1954, by the Grand Jury for Baltimore City. The first indictment charged the appellant in the first and only count with murder in the first degree of Della Honeyman on January 17, 1954. The second indictment charged the appellant in the first count on the same date with rape of Della Honeyman; in the second count with assault with intent to rape; and in the third count with assault. The third indictment charged the appellant in the first count on the same date with robbery of the said Della Honeyman; in the second count with assault with intent to rob; in the third count with assault; in the fourth count with larceny; and in the fifth count with receiving stolen goods. The fourth indictment charged the appellant in the first count on the same date with burglary of the dwelling house of the said Della Honeyman; in the second count with being a rogue and vagabond; and in the third count with receiving stolen goods.
On May 24, 1954, the appellant was arraigned and entered a written plea of not guilty by reason of insanity to each of the charges as set forth in the indictments and to each and every count thereof.
The State elected to proceed to trial on the first indictment and on the first count of each of the other indictments. A jury was empanelled and sworn and the case heard on three successive days. At the end of the State's case on May 26, 1954, the appellant made a motion for an instructed verdict of not guilty, which motion was overruled. The appellant then produced his evidence. At the end of his case he again moved for an acquittal, which motion was overruled. On May 26, 1954, the jury returned a verdict of guilty of murder in the first degree, rape, robbery, and burglary. After a motion for a new trial was refused by the Supreme Bench of Baltimore City, the appellant on October 8, 1954, was sentenced to death.
The appellant, at the time of the alleged crimes, was thirty-two years of age. He could not read or write, other than write his name. He left school in the third grade. As a young boy he had been confined in the Cheltenham Reformatory. Shortly before the commission of the crimes here he finished serving a fifteen year term in the Maryland Penitentiary for robbery. He stated in his confession that shortly after midnight of January 16, 1954, he had been drinking. He knocked the window out at the back entrance of 1515 North Gilmor Street in Baltimore with his fist. For the purpose of getting money, he went into the store part. He got some money out of a drawer there. Miss Honeyman, the owner, came into the store 'from the back' where she was sleeping. He ran back to the front part of the store and she followed him. She grabbed him and he grabbed her and threw her down back of the counter. He then grabbed her on the bosom and felt a bag there about as big as his fist. He choked her and took the bag. She screamed and he hit her head against the floor and raped her. He held his hand over her mouth so that people passing the store would not hear her screams. When testifying he denied he raped her. He then ran out of the store. He found that the bag contained a large sum of money in fifty and one hundred dollar bills. He went home and sneaked in the cellar and went to sleep. He awoke at daybreak and went upstairs and gave his mother his coat, which was torn and on which there was blood, and told her to burn it. He told his family that he had 'hit the numbers', evidently meaning that he had won the money gambling. He gave his mother $150, his sister $400, and his girl friend $100. He also gave large sums of money to other friends. With other friends he took a trip to Philadelphia and New York, he paying the expenses. He bought clothes in New York. On his return to Baltimore he had $1,900 left which was stolen from him. He had heard on the radio the day after the attack that Miss Honeyman was dead and he said that was the reason he gave the money away.
The report of Dr. Russell S. Fisher, Department of Post Mortem Examiners, gave the cause of death as 'asphyxia due to manual strangulation.' Also there were multiple contusions of the head, face, extremities and right breast. There were extensive lacerations and contusion of perineum, vagina and rectum.
The appellant objects to the following part of the charge given by the trial judge to the jury: The appellant's claim of insanity is based largely on the following parts of the testimony of Dr. Manfred Guttmacher, Chief Medical Officer of the Supreme Bench of Baltimore City, a psychiatrist, to whom appellant had been referred for examination:
The appellant also relies on the testimony of other witnesses to the effect that at times, before the commission of the offenses here, when drinking, he became hostile and at one time, when drinking and very angry, started toward his mother with a butcher knife and threw the radio against the wall. Counsel for the appellant argues that the jury in determining appellant's insanity should take into consideration these hostile tendencies of the appellant when under the influence of alcohol, and the fact that he gave money to persons to whom he was in no way obligated. Appellant also argues that the jury should have been permitted to take into consideration the question of malice, deliberation, and premeditation.
Dr. Guttmacher, in explaining the effect of alcohol on certain individuals, said under cross-examination: Dr. Guttmacher further testified that he found that, although appellant had poor intelligence, he was not considered 'actually feeble minded or mentally defective.' The appellant himself stated that the reason he gave away the money was because he learned that Miss Honeyman was dead. He evidently thought that by...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re J.H.
...a homicide investigation, it was noted that "[t]here were no lacerations or hemorrhages of the perineum ...."); Thomas v. State , 206 Md. 575, 579, 112 A.2d 913 (1955) (in reference to the rape and murder of a store owner, the medical examiner found that "[t]here were extensive lacerations ......
-
Blocker v. United States
...139 N.E.2d 185; State v. Andrews, 1960, 187 Kan. 458, 357 P.2d 739; Bryant v. State, 1955, 207 Md. 565, 115 A.2d 502; Thomas v. State, 1955, 206 Md. 575, 112 A.2d 913; Commonwealth v. Chester, 1958, 337 Mass. 702, 150 N.E.2d 914; State v. Finn, 1960, 257 Minn. 138, 100 N.W.2d 508 (test inco......
-
Bruce v. State
...Newton v. State, 280 Md. 260, 269, 373 A.2d 262 (1977); Thompson v. State, 230 Md. 113, 117, 186 A.2d 461 (1962); Thomas v. State, 206 Md. 575, 581-82, 112 A.2d 913 (1954). As we said in Jackson v. State, 286 Md. 430, 435, 408 A.2d 711 (1979), "homicide arising in the perpetration of, or in......
-
Williams v. State
...v. State, 202 Md. 62, 67, 95 A.2d 319 (1953); "[o]f course, the law presumes every man innocent of crime...."--Thomas v. State, 206 Md. 575, 587, 112 A.2d 913 (1955); "[e]veryone accused of crime in this State is presumed to be innocent...."--Malcolm v. State, 232 Md. 222, 225, 192 A.2d 281......