Ware v. State

Citation3 Md.App. 62,237 A.2d 526
Decision Date01 February 1968
Docket NumberNo. 96,96
PartiesTheodore WARE v. STATE of Maryland.
CourtCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland

William Franklin Gosnell, Baltimore, for appellant.

Bernard L. Silbert, Asst. Atty. Gen., with whom were Francis B. Burch, Atty. Gen., Charles E. Moylan, Jr., I. Elliott Goldberg and LeRoy Carroll, State's Atty., and Asst. State's Attys., for Baltimore City, respectively, Baltimore, on brief, for appellee.

Before MURPHY, C. J., and ANDERSON, MORTON, ORTH and THOMPSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Theodore Ware, the appellant, complains of a conviction of murder in the second degree in a trial without a jury in the Criminal Court of Baltimore.

There was evidence from which the court could have found: On February 21, 1966, at or about 12:30 A.M., Ware, with his girlfriend, Margaret Jeter, and the deceased, Isaac Perry, with his girlfriend, Alethia Bond, were present at the 'Millionaire's Club', a nightclub located at 1029 Pennsylvania Avenue in the City of Baltimore. Ware and the deceased were seated at separate but adjoining tables in a cramped area. An argument ensued between the two concerning a coat which had been erroneously picked up by another person. An altercation soon followed in which the deceased put his hand on a beer bottle and Ware produced a knife and said: 'Don't mess with anybody unless you know what they have.' At this point the hostilities temporarily ceased. Ware returned the knife to his pocket and Alethia Bond wrestled the beer bottle from the deceased and placed it on the table. After a short pause, hostilities again resumed and the principals, together with Alethia Bond, appeared in the center of the floor. Ware offered to fight with the deceased but suggested that they go outside. The deceased declined the offer, reached over Alethia Bond and struck Ware with his fist with such force that Ware and the deceased fell on the floor with Alethia Bond between them 'like a sandwich.' Several by-standers untangled the pile-up but Alethia Bond remained on the floor holding on to Ware's legs. This caused an argument between Margaret Jeter and Miss Bond. At this point Ware 'took his knife from his pocket' and advised a bystander not to interfere with the fight between the two young ladies. Ware, with his knife in hand, proceeded to throw bottles and glasses at the deceased who had retreated to a corner. Ware stabbed the deceased twice with his knife and fled the scene. He was apprehended under a warrant six days later hiding under a bed at the premises at 4007 Ann Ellen Road, Baltimore.

The trial judge found that, although the deceased was the original aggressor, Ware used more force than was necessary to repel the attack, and that he had ample time to 'cool off' before he resumed the affray after the deceased had backed away from the scene of the first struggle. We cannot say the trial judge was clearly wrong under Maryland Rule 1086 which establishes that we shall affirm the decision of the trial judge in a trial without a jury unless we can find that his decision on the evidence was clearly erroneous. The law is clear that although a person may defend himself, even to the extent of taking life to repel the attack of an aggressor, it is equally well settled that he cannot use more force than is necessary, Tipton v. State, 1 Md.App. 556, 232 A.2d 289, Guerriero v. State, 213 Md. 545, 132 A.2d 466. The law is equally well established that although an affray may, under some circumstances, arouse the passions of an accused to the extent that a homicide would be reduced from murder to manslaughter, this rule does not apply where there is ample time for the passions 'to cool', 2 A.L.R.3d 1292, 1306 (1965); 1 Wharton: Criminal Law and Procedure § 286 (Anderson's 12th Edition).

Thus the appellant's claims that he was entitled to an acquittal by reason of self-defense and that the evidence did not support a verdict of murder in the second degree are obviously without merit.

A timely motion for...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 cases
  • Banks v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • September 1, 1991
    ...W. LaFave & A. Scott, Criminal Law § 77 at 583 (1972)); Whitehead v. State, 9 Md.App. 7, 10, 262 A.2d 316 (1970); Ware v. State, 3 Md.App. 62, 65, 237 A.2d 526 (1968); Tipton v. State, 1 Md.App. 556, 560, 232 A.2d 289, cert. denied, 247 Md. 742 (1967). The new statute permits admission of t......
  • Campbell v. State
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • April 7, 2003
    ...that Rule 4-331 demands literal compliance with filing deadlines and "other formal constraints." The court relied on Ware v. State, 3 Md.App. 62, 237 A.2d 526 (1968), to conclude that "[i]t is thus clear that a trial court may not disregard the filing deadline." In that case, Ware filed a t......
  • Lambert v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • September 1, 1986
    ...it. Shuck v. State, 29 Md.App. 33, 38, 349 A.2d 378 (1975). See also Guerriero, supra, 213 Md. at 549, 132 A.2d 466; Ware v. State, 3 Md.App. 62, 65, 237 A.2d 526 (1968); Tipton v. State, 1 Md.App. 556, 562, 232 A.2d 289, cert. denied, 247 Md. 742 (1967). One is not privileged to use deadly......
  • Brown v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • June 4, 1968
    ...or excessive; i.e., the defender must not have used more force than the exigency reasonably demanded.' And in Ware v. State, 3 Md.App. 62, 237 A.2d 526, 528 (1968), we again noted 'The law is clear that although a person may defend himself, even to the extent of taking life to repel the att......
  • 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