Williams v. State

Decision Date20 November 1968
Docket NumberNo. 89,89
Citation247 A.2d 731,5 Md.App. 450
PartiesMarva WILLIAMS, Rebecca Evelyn McClelland and Mary Louise McClelland v. STATE of Maryland.
CourtCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland

Tucker R. Dearing, Baltimore, for appellant.

James L. Bundy, Asst. Atty. Gen., with whom were Francis B. Burch, Atty. Gen., Richard J. Kinlein, State's Atty. for Howard County, Julian B. Stevens, Jr., and Ronald M. Naditch, State's Atty. and Asst. State's Atty. for Anne Arundel County respectively, on brief for appellee.

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

ORTH, Judge.

Each of the appellants was found guilty by a jury in the Circuit Court for Howard County of aiding and abetting in the escape of Harry LaRue McClelland, who was undergoing lawful imprisonment in Patuxent Institution, and with conspiring to aid and abet his escape. Each appellant was sentenced to the custody of the Commissioner of Correction for an indeterminate period not to exceed 3 years on each conviction, the sentences to run concurrently. On appeal from the judgments the sole contention is that the evidence was not legally sufficient to sustain the convictions.

APPELLATE REVIEW OF THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE

We think it advisable to discuss the authority and function of this Court in its review of the sufficiency of the evidence in a criminal case. The right of a person charged by this State with a criminal offense to be tried by a jury is guaranteed by Art. 5, Declaration of Rights, Constitution of Maryland and Amendment VI, Constitution of the United States. 1 He may however, waive the right and elect Art. XV, § 5, Constitution of Maryland, prior to the amendment effective 1 December 1950, provided: 'In the trial of all criminal cases, the Jury shall be the Judges of Law, as well as of fact.' 3 As a corollary to this provision, in the absence of other provisions by statute, it became the settled law of Maryland that the Court of Appeals would not pass on the legal sufficiency of evidence to convict in a criminal case where the case was tried by a jury and, by analogy to the constitutional provision, it was repeatedly held by the Court of Appeals that it would not pass on the legal sufficiency of the evidence to convict where the case was tried by the court sitting as a jury. Abbott v. State, 188 Md. 310, 313, 52 A.2d 489. See Jones v. State, 188 Md. 263, 273, 52 A.2d 484; League v. State 36 Md. 257. Compare Winkler v. State, 194 Md. 1, 69 A.2d 674. The first change with respect to appellate review of the sufficiency of the evidence in criminal cases came with the adoption of the General Rules of Practice and Procedure by the Court of Appeals, effective 1 January 1950. Rule 7(c) of Part Four, relating to Criminal Rules, 4 contained in substance, the provisions of Rule 1086, Maryland Rules of Procedure, now in effect, and applicable to this Court. 5

Rule 1086 provides:

'When a case has been tried by the lower court without a jury, this Court will review the case upon both the law and the evidence, but the judgment of the lower court will not be set aside on the evidence unless clearly erroneous and due regard will be given to the opportunity of the lower court to judge the credibility of the witnesses.'

So it was not until 1 January 1950 that there could be an appellate review to determine the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction in a criminal case and then such review was limited to those cases tried by the court without a jury. 6 However, Art. XV, § 5 of the Constitution of Maryland was amended, effective 1 December 1950 by adding to the existing provisions the clause 'except that the Court may pass upon the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction.' 7 The amendment was implemented by statute, now Md.Code, (1967Repl.Vol.), Art. 27 § 593, and rule of Court, now Md.Rules, 755. 8

Art. 27, § 593 provides 'In the trial of all criminal cases, the jury shall be the judges of law, as well as of fact, except that at the conclusion of the evidence for the State a motion for judgment of acquittal on one or more counts, or on one or more degrees of an offense, may be made by an accused on the ground that the evidence is insufficient in law to justify his conviction as to any such count or degree. If the motion is denied, he may offer evidence on his own behalf without having reversed the right to do so, but by so doing, he withdraws his motion. The motion may be made at the close of all the evidence whether or not such motion was made at the conclusion of the evidence for the State. If the motion is denied the defendant may have a review of such ruling on appeal.'

Rule 755 b provides to like effect as to the making of a motion for judgment of acquittal and Rule 755 c provides that if the lower court on such motion or on its own motion determines that a judgment of acquittal should be granted, it shall direct the clerk to enter it. If the case is tried before a jury it shall not be necessary for the jury to render a verdict.

It is clear therefore that under the present status of the law there may be an appellate review of the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction in a criminal case. But the issue comes before us in a case tried by the lower court sitting as a jury in a different posture than when the case is tried by a jury. In a non-jury case Rule 1086 specifically provides that we shall review the case upon the evidence (as well as the law) and we must determine whether the lower court was clearly wrong on the evidence in finding a verdict of guilty. In a jury case if the lower court finds upon motion for judgment of acquittal that the evidence is sufficient in law to justify a conviction, it denies the motion, and permits the evidence to go to the jury. On appeal we determine whether the denial of the motion was proper. It is because of this difference in the posture of the issue of the sufficiency of the evidence that we may entertain the issue on appeal in a jury case only upon the denial by the lower court of a motion for judgment of acquittal 9 but we must entertain the issue in a non-jury case when presented on appeal even in the absence of a motion for judgment of acquittal below. 10 See Lotharp v. State, 231 Md. 239, 189 A.2d 652; Nicholson v. State, 229 Md. 123, 182 A.2d 31; Elliott v. State, 215 Md. 152, 137 A.2d 130; Jason v. State, 1 Md.App. 136, 228 A.2d 485.

The question arises as to what test is to be applied on appeal in determining the sufficiency of the evidence (1) to sustain a conviction in a non-jury case, and (2) to justify its submission to the jury in a jury case. The first occasion the Court of Appeals had to apply the rule (then Criminal Rule 7(c)) pertaining to a non-jury case was in Lambert v. State, 196 Md. 57, 75 A.2d 327. The Court said, page 68, 75 A.2d page 332:

'That rule was adopted for the purpose of preventing a possible miscarriage of justice by permitting the determination of one judge to take away the life or liberty of an accused without a review by any other tribunal. It was not intended, and will not be construed, to permit us to reverse judgments merely because our conclusion on the record is different from that of the trial judge. It is only intended to prevent manifest error.'

The rationale of the rule was again so stated in Edwards v. State, 198 Md. 132, 151, 83 A.2d 578, 581, 26 A.L.R.2d 874. In the Memorandum on Motion for Reargument in that case the Court discussed the matter at length, noting that it was the first time it was suggested that the provision that 'the verdict of the trial court shall not be set aside on the evidence, unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge of the credibility of the witnesses' means any less than it says. It answered counsel's question how the Court of Appeals could ever say that the trial court is clearly wrong by stating, at page 159, 83 A.2d at page 582:

'This question can only be answered as and when it is presented, case by case. If we recognize the difference between the roles of triers of facts and appellate courts, and the terms of Rule 7, it is expected that such cases will be rare * * *.'

By a long line of cases since Lambert v. State, supra, it has been firmly established that the test to be applied by the Court of Appeals and this Court in reaching a determination of the sufficiency of the evidence in a non-jury case is whether the evidence either shows directly or supports a rational inference of the facts to be proved, from which the lower court could fairly be convinced, beyond a reasonable doubt, of the defendant's guilt of the offense charged. 11

Shelton v. State, 198 Md. 405, 84 A.2d 76 appears to be the first case decided by the Court of Appeals in which Art. XV, § 5 of the Maryland Constitution as amended was applicable. The Court said, at p. 412, 84 A.2d at p. 80 that it would not reverse the judgment of the lower court 'if there is any proper evidence before the jury on which to sustain a conviction,' and held that the evidence of that case 'was sufficient to warrant its submission to the jury.' The test to be applied by the Court of Appeals and this Court in determining whether the case or a particular issue was properly submitted to the jury has been stated a number of times as whether there was any relevant evidence adduced at the trial which would properly sustain a conviction. 12

Although the manner in which the question of the sufficiency of the evidence comes before us when a case is tried by the lower court without a jury is different than when a case is tried below by a jury, we see no material difference in the tests applied in determining the question. It is clear that in each instance the weight of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses are matters for the trier of facts. Shelton v. State, supra, at p. 412, 84 A.2d 76 and Graef v. State,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
243 cases
  • Ball v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • February 2, 1984
    ...on. The evidence of Ball's guilt was abundantly sufficient. Metz v. State, 9 Md.App. 15, 23, 262 A.2d 331 (1970); Williams v. State, 5 Md.App. 450, 459, 247 A.2d 731 (1968). Contention 1: Trial We turn our attention to the claim of the appellants Wright and Ball that the trial judge committ......
  • State v. Amerman
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • September 1, 1990
    ...there be some credible evidence which, if believed, could establish each and every distinct element of an offense. Williams v. State, 5 Md.App. 450, 247 A.2d 731 (1968); Metz v. State, 9 Md.App. 15, 262 A.2d 331 (1970). In a jury trial, the judge, as a legal referee, must subject the eviden......
  • Cox v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • April 6, 1982
    ...was legally sufficient for it to find that the crimes charged were committed and that Cox committed them. See Williams v. State, 5 Md.App. 450, 452-460, 247 A.2d 731 (1968), cert. den., 252 Md. 734 (1969). On appeal, Cox makes no suggestion to the contrary. Rather, he points to five errors ......
  • Pinkney v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • April 6, 1970
    ...of the witnesses, these matters being for the trier of fact in arriving at the guilt or innocence of the accused. See Williams v. State, 5 Md.App. 450, 247 A.2d 731. But in deciding whether the interest of justice requires a new trial of an accused convicted by the trier of fact on the evid......
  • 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