Opinion
[No. 152, September Term, 1960.]
Decided March 13, 1961. Certiorari denied, 368 U.S. 865.
CRIMINAL LAW — New Trial — Hearing On Motion For, In Rape Case — Absence Of Bottle Fragments Employed To Intimidate Victim, Held Not Prejudicial. In a prosecution for rape which allegedly was accomplished by employing a vodka bottle as a weapon to intimidate the victim and to cause her submission, this Court found no prejudice under the circumstances of this case in the fact that the bottle fragments were not produced at the hearing on the defendant's motion for a new trial. pp. 437-438
CRIMINAL LAW — Discrepancy Between Prosecutor's Opening Statement And Proof — Trivial And Fully Explained — Non-Jury Case. A discrepancy in a criminal case between the prosecutor's opening statement (which was not evidence in the case) and the proof, as disclosed by the record, was held to be trivial and fully explained by the testimony of a witness, the Court also noting that since the case was tried before the lower court, sitting without a jury, it must conclude that the trial judge was not misled in any way in evaluating the evidence and reaching his conclusion. p. 438
CRIMINAL LAW — Defense In Rape Case Held Adequate At Every Stage Of Proceedings, And No Violation Of Due Process. The Court held that the defendant in the instant rape case was adequately defended at every stage of the proceedings — including the trial, the hearing on a motion for a new trial and this appeal — , and that there was no violation of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. p. 438
J.E.B.
Decided March 13, 1961.
Appeal from the Criminal Court of Baltimore (BYRNES, J.).
Charles James Reeves was convicted of rape, by the trial court, sitting without a jury, and sentenced to life imprisonment, and from the judgment entered thereon, he appeals.
Affirmed.
The cause was argued before HENDERSON, HAMMOND, PRESCOTT, HORNEY and MARBURY, JJ.
Charles H. Wheatley, III, for the appellant.
James O'C. Gentry, Assistant Attorney General, with whom were C. Ferdinand Sybert, Attorney General, Saul A. Harris, State's Attorney for Baltimore City, and Charles E. Moylan, Jr., Assistant State's Attorney, on the brief, for the appellee.
The trial court, sitting without a jury, found the appellant guilty of rape and sentenced him to life imprisonment in the penitentiary. On this appeal he presents three questions: (1) Did the Court abuse its discretion in failing to require the production of the bottle neck and fragments as required by a subpoena duces tecum when the same were essential to the State's case, thereby making a complete consideration of a motion for new trial impossible; (2) was the Court sitting as a trier of the facts misled by the inaccurate statement of material facts by the State and its witnesses so that the appellant was precluded from receiving a trial free from prejudicial error; and (3) did the appellant receive an adequate defense as required by due process under the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution?
As to the first question, the appellant contends that the Supreme Bench of Baltimore City, in hearing the motion for new trial, abused its discretion in not considering and viewing the fragments of the broken pint Vodka bottle which was the weapon employed to intimidate the victim and to cause her submission. The record does not affirmatively show that the broken bottle fragments were introduced at the trial but their size and condition were described and the fact that no fingerprints were found on them or anywhere in the victim's apartment was revealed. At that time it was reported that the fragments had been lost, but it later developed that the police had the fragments and the appellant obtained a photograph thereof, which was included in the transcript although not put in evidence below. Moreover, the appellant in his defense, relied not upon the consent of the victim, but upon insufficiency of identity. From the above facts we can find no prejudice in the absence of the bottle fragments at the hearing of the motion for a new trial. Winkler v. State, 194 Md. 1, cert. den., 339 U.S. 919; Givner v. State, 208 Md. 1; Ford v. Warden, 214 Md. 649; Thomas v. State, 215 Md. 558.
The appellant cannot prevail upon the second question. The discrepancy between the prosecutor's opening statement (which was not evidence in this case) and the proof, as disclosed by the record, was only trivial and fully explained by the testimony of the witness, Sergeant Ford. Moreover, the case was tried before the Court without a jury, and we must conclude that he was not misled in any way in evaluating the evidence and reaching his conclusion.
As to the third question, the record discloses that appellant was represented at the trial by two attorneys of his own selection who had considerable experience in the field of criminal law. The Court appointed counsel to represent him at the hearing on the motion for new trial, and likewise he was represented by able counsel on this indigent appeal. We conclude that he was adequately defended at every stage of the proceedings and that there was no violation of due process under the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Judgment affirmed.