Maryland Prince George’s County Larceny Conviction Lawyers Attorney

Maryland Prince George’s County Larceny Conviction Lawyers Attorney

by

Atchuthan Sriskandarajah

LINWOOD WILLIE v. STATE OF MARYLAND.

COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND

November 2, 1927, Decided

Facts:

One evening, a motorist was driving a car loaded with whiskey. He ran into another car, whereupon he jumped out of his car and ran. A police officer testified that after he captured the motorist, he saw defendant jump into the motorist’s car and drive away with it. That testimony was corroborated by other witnesses. Defendant’s witness was prevented from testifying that when she went to serve as bondsman for defendant, the charge against him was reckless driving and transporting liquor. Defendant was convicted of larceny of an automobile. He filed a motion for a new trial and a motion in arrest of judgment which were overruled, and exceptions to the overruling of said motions were reserved. He was sentenced by the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County (Maryland) to prison and filed an order of appeal. He then filed a motion to strike out the verdict and sentence, which was overruled, and he appealed.

Issues:

Whether the trial court erred in refusing to permit

witness

to answer a question on the charge against the defendant?

Whether the trial court had erred in overruling defendant’s motions for a new trial?

Discussion

This court held that the trial court has not erred in refusing to permit witness to answer a question on the charge against the defendant. This court held that it could not fairly be inferred from the fact that defendant was not originally charged with larceny, if that were true, that the State’s witnesses, who testified he drove the car from the accident and was later arrested, were testifying falsely. In such circumstances, the physical facts related by them were not inconsistent with the laying of the alleged original charge.

This court held that the record does not disclose the grounds on which the motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment were based. It appears, however, from argument of counsel that they amounted to a demurrer to the evidence. Of course, it is conceded that in this state the granting of a new trial is a matter entirely in the discretion of the trial court and from its refusal no appeal lies. And the mere fact that a motion is called a motion in arrest of judgment does not determine its real character to the extent of enabling this court to review rulings upon matters that must be addressed to the discretion of the trial court. The court held that as to the motion to strike out the verdict and judgment was based on the same reason as the motion in arrest of judgment, it was properly overruled.

Conclusion:

This court hence affirmed the judgment convicting the defendant of larceny of automobile.

Disclaimer:These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm s unofficial views of the Justices opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content

Atchuthan Sriskandarajah is a Virginia lawyer and owner of the SRIS Law Group. The SRIS Law Group has offices in Virginia,

Maryland

, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina & California. The firm handles criminal/traffic defense, family law, immigration & bankruptcy cases.

Article Source:

ArticleRich.com