White v. State

• Citation: 238 A.2d 278,3 Md.App. 167
• Decision Date: 15 February 1968
• Docket Number: No. 102,102
• Parties: Roland T. WHITE v. STATE of Maryland.
• Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

Page 167

3 Md.App. 167

238 A.2d 278

Roland T. WHITE v. STATE of Maryland.

No. 102.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.

Feb. 15, 1968.

William H. Meserole, Jr., College Park, for appellant.

William B. Whiteford, Asst. Atty. Gen., Francis B. Burch, Atty. Gen., Baltimore, Arthur A Marshall, Jr., and Benjamin Wolman, State's Atty., and Asst. State's Atty. for Prince George's County, respectively, Upper Marlboro. on the brief, for appellee.

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

PER CURIAM.

Roland T. White, the appellant, complains of a conviction for unnatural and perverted sexual practices on Charles Thomas Spriggs and on Frederick Lee Spriggs in a jury trial in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County.

It appears that on the night of March 24, 1966, White, who had been drinking, went to the home of his friends, the Spriggs family, where he was a regular visitor and had often spent the night. White, that night, slept downstairs in a big chair while Mr. and Mrs. Spriggs also slept downstairs although they had a bed on the second floor. The Spriggs' children slept upstairs. Three of the Spriggs shared one bedroom-Charles, age 10, and Phillip shared one bed. Frederick, age 8, shared a second bedroom with his sister.

Both Charles and Frederick testified that during the night White committed unnatural sexual practice upon them. Frederick was told by White after the completion of the unnatural act not to inform anyone of what had occurred. Mrs. Sriggs learned of the incident from her son, Charles, after she had questioned him concerning any possible reason why White had been unusually attentive to the children by purchasing them many gifts. After she talked with her husband Friday evening, a warrant was obtained on Saturday, March 26, and White was arrested the same day.

White testified that he had something to drink before arriving at the Spriggs' home, and the first thing the recalled after retiring for the night was a request by Mrs. Spriggs to bring her a glass of water the following morning. He was forty-one years of age, married but separated from his family. He was regularly employed working on the highways by Prince George's County. He regularly sent Fifty Dollars ($50.00) every two weeks for the support of his family. For two years immediately prior to the incidents involved in these proceedings, he maintained a home of his own an visited with the Spriggs family frequently and helped with the chores around the house. For three years prior to establishing his own home he had been a regular resident of the Spriggs household. The written report of a psychiatrist was filed in the proceedings; the psychiatrist testified on White's behalf that he was a chronic alcoholic, suffered from syphilis and some seven years before had spent a short time at the Crownsville State Hospital, a mental institution. The psychiatrist further testified that White had poor judgment and when he was drunk he had no judgment at all. He further stated his opinion that at the time White 'didn't know what he was doing and could not have formed an intent.' Neither in the written report nor in oral testimony did the psychiatrist state that White did not know right from wrong nor that he failed to understand the nature and consequences of his act as applied to himself. From a colloquy between court and counsel it appears that counsel deliberately refrained from asking the crucial question although he declined to withdraw his plea of insanity.

White first contends that the trial court abused its discretion in receiving the testimony of the two young boys. The record shows that the boys were examined carefully by the State's Attorney, defense counsel and the court with regard to their capacity to testify, both stated unequivocally that they knew what it was to tell the truth and to tell a lie; and that they would be punished if they told a lie. White concedes that under Saldiveri v. State, 217 Md. 412, 419, 143 A.2d 70, 74, and under Horsey v. State, 225 Md. 80, 169 A.2d 457, 458 a child may testify within the discretion of the court. He alleges, however, that certain inconsistencies in the testimony show an abuse of this discretion. The inconsistencies pointed to the differences between the children's testimony and that of other persons on details not important to the proceedings. There were no inconsistencies in their testimony concerning the important details of the incident described and we see no merit in the contention. See Bell v. State, 2 Md.App. 471, 235 A.2d 307.

As a subsidiary point, White claims that it was error for the trial judge to fail to instruct the jury that the children's testimony should be viewed in light of their tender age. No such instruction was requested under Maryland Rule 756(f). Although we are permitted to review a plain error under 756(g) we do not think, under the circumstances of this case, that this was such an error.

White alleges error in the denial of his motion for a judgment of acquittal, pointing out again various minor differences in testimony of the several witnesses on matters not directly relevant to the charge. The story of each boy as to the essential facts was clear and unequivocal. We have repeatedly held that the testimony of the victim, if believed, is sufficient to...