Williams v. State

• Citation: 4 Md.App. 643,244 A.2d 619
• Decision Date: 29 July 1968
• Docket Number: No. 357,357
• Parties: John Franklin WILLIAMS v. STATE of Maryland.
• Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

Page 643

4 Md.App. 643

244 A.2d 619

John Franklin WILLIAMS v. STATE of Maryland.

No. 357.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.

July 29, 1968.

Ehtiorari Denied Jan. 14, 1969.

Harvey A. Blum, with whom were Alan J. Bloom, and David Kimmelman, Baltimore, on the brief, for appellant.

Bernard L. Silbert, Asst. Atty. Gen., with whom were Francis B. Burch, Atty. Gen., Baltimore, and Samuel A. Green, Jr., and E. Harrison Stone, State's Atty. and Asst. State's Atty. for Baltimore County, Towson, respectively, on the brief, for appellee.

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

PER CURIAM.

On November 9, 1967, the appellant, John Franklin Williams, was convicted by a jury of common law assault and resisting arrest, in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, Judge John Grason Turnbull presiding. Appellant was sentenced to five years imprisonment under the Maryland Department of Correction on the assault conviction, with a general suspended sentence on the resisting arrest conviction.

Appellant raises three contentions on appeal:

1. That the trial court abused its discretion in not granting the appellant a change of venue from Baltimore County.

2. That the appellant's arrest was illegal.

3. That the State failed to prove the necessary mens rea to establish guilt.

The evidence adduced at the trial established that on January 15, 1967 Officer William Robinson of the Baltimore County Police responded to a call over his police radio reporting that a subject was observed with a knife at 40 North Twin Circle Way, Baltimore, Maryland. The report lacked a description of the subject and information that the knife was being used against another. Upon arrival at the aforenoted address, Officer Robinson was admitted to the premises by Carole Ferrara. The officer observed blood on the kitchen floor and the appellant sitting at the kitchen table. Observing that the appellant's hand was cut, the officer volunteered to render first aid, to which appellant replied '(d)on't touch me, you bastard,' accompanied by a shove. The appellant then jumped up and grabbed Carole Ferrara, pushing her backwards into the sink, grabbed a meat cleaver and threatened to kill the officer if he attempted to take him from the apartment. Officer Robinson advised the appellant that he had caused damage and had committed an assault in his presence and directed him to drop the meat cleaver. When the appellant failed to drop the cleaver, the officer drew his revolver and pointed it at him and warned him three times to drop the cleaver. Appellant dropped the cleaver and was advised that he was under arrest. When the officer attempted to place handcuffs on the appellant, a scuffle arose, with both the officer and the appellant falling to the floor, during which the appellant kicked Officer Robinson.

Article 75, § 44 of the Maryland Code Annotated, makes it clear that before a removal will be ordered, the party suggesting same must 'make it satisfactorily appear to the court that such suggestion is true (that he cannot have a fair and impartial trial) or that there is reasonable ground for same.' Dolan v. State, 1 Md.App. 292, 296, 229 A.2d 443, 445 (1967); McLaughlin v. State, 3 Md.App. 515, 520, 240 A.2d 298, 302 (1968). This language requires the 'logical conclusion that in the absence of evidence to show that the court below acted arbitrarily and abused or refused to exercise the discretion given it by the amendment, this Court cannot say that the removal should or should not have been granted, and can only affirm the action of the lower court.' Downs v. State, 111 Md. 241, 248, 73 A. 893, 895 (1909); Dolan v. State, supra.

The thrust of the appellant's contention is that since the victim of his alleged attack was a Baltimore County police officer, he could not be afforded a fair and impartial trial in Baltimore County. The trial court found that the appellant failed to maintain his burden of persuasion by establishing an affirmative showing that he had been prejudiced. We note that the trial judge entered voir dire inquiries directed at this issue in an apparent effort to remove even the remotest possibility of prejudicial sentiment from the trial. We find that the appellant's allegation fails to establish an affirmative showing of prejudice, and further find no abuse of discretion by the trial court.

Appellant's second contention is without merit. Officer Robinson was lawfully present at the situs of the crime based upon his voluntary admission to the premises by Carole Ferrara. This admission to the premises, when coupled with...