Whyte v. State, 10
| Decision Date | 16 October 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 10,10 |
| Citation | 184 A.2d 738,229 Md. 459 |
| Parties | Ignatius N. WHYTE v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Albert A. Levin, Baltimore, for appellant.
Thomas B. Finan, Atty. Gen., Robert F. Sweeney, Asst. Atty. Gen., Saul A. Harris, State's Atty., and Dene L. Lusby, Asst. State's Atty., Baltimore, for appellee.
Before BRUNE, C. J., and HENDERSON, HAMMOND, PRESCOTT, HORNEY, MARBURY and SYBERT, JJ.
Ignatius N. Whyte was convicted by a jury of the possession and control of narcotics. On appeal he claims insufficiency of the evidence and entrapment by the police. Both contentions are without merit.
A member of the narcotics squad, having searched a 'special employee' (known as 'Dukey') and finding no money or narcotics in his possession, gave him money with which to make a purchase. The officer, in plain clothes, while following the special employee and defendant, saw the employee give the defendant money and saw the defendant walk into a school yard, leaving the employee in the street. After the lapse of about a minute, the defendant returned and gave 'something' to the employee, who, in turn, gave a package, containing two capsules of heroin, to the officer. The officer again searched the employee and found neither narcotics nor money. The defendant was arrested approximately sixty days later in a series of arrests along with other suspected offenders. The State introduced the testimony of the 'undercover' officer and the captain of the narcotics squad, but the special employee was not called to testify. The motions of the defendant for a judgment of acquittal on the possession and control counts in the indictment were overruled.
It was not essential to the prosecution that it call the special employee as a state witness. And since there was legally sufficient evidence from which the jury could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the verdict will not be set aside. Wright v. State, 222 Md. 242, 159 A.2d 636.
The complaint with respect to entrapment was groundless. The issue was submitted to the jury on proper instructions and it found against the defendant. Baxter v. State, 223 Md. 495, 165 A.2d 469, cert. den. 366 U.S. 968, 81 S.Ct. 1930, 6 L.Ed.2d 1258. See also Ferraro v. State, 200 Md. 274, 89 A.2d 628.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sparks v. State
...three claims. Baxter v. State, 223 Md. 495, 165 A.2d 469 (1960); Lane v. State, 226 Md. 81, 87-88, 172 A.2d 400 (1961); Whyte v. State, 229 Md. 459, 184 A.2d 738 (1962). In the other eight cases, verdicts of guilty 23 had been handed down in court trials. In each of the eight cases, the def......
-
Stewart v. State
...only the permissible offering of an opportunity to a known offender to exercise his predisposition to violate the law. See Whyte v. State, 229 Md. 459, 184 A.2d 738, and Lane v. State, 226 Md. 81, 87, 88, 172 A.2d The defense that appellant was no more than an agent is based on the case of ......
-
Fisher v. State
...merely said that the conduct which the appellant contended amounted to entrapment was permitted police activity. In Whyte v. State, 229 Md. 459, 184 A.2d 738 (1962), the Court said that the claim of entrapment was groundless-the issue was submitted to the jury on proper instructions.Grohman......
-
State v. Brown
...Art. 27, sec. 300. The points regarding the failure of the State to produce the informer 'Dukie' are without merit. See Whyte v. State, 229 Md. 459, 184 A.2d 738, and Knight v. State, 229 Md. 460, 184 A.2d 709. Cf. Lee v. State, Md., 201 A.2d 502. The testimony of Officer Buchanan was enoug......