Opinion

Deems v. State

  • 127 Md. 624
  • 96 A. 878
  • 1916 Md. LEXIS 40
Court
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Filed
Jan 28, 1916
Status
Published
Author
Burke
On the bench
Urner, Boto, Briscoe, Burke, Thomas, Pattison, Drner, Stookbridge
Cited by
23 cases

“The [trial] court is given no authority to decide as to the . . . sufficiency of [the] evidence . . . . It is expressly denied the right to determine a question of that nature by” Article X, Section 5’s identical successor. (Citing Dick, 107 Md. at 17 , -8- 68 A. at 288 ; Jessup, 117 Md. at 123 , 83 A. at 142 )

How later courts described this case

  • “The [trial] court is given no authority to decide as to the . . . sufficiency of [the] evidence . . . . It is expressly denied the right to determine a question of that nature by” Article X, Section 5’s identical successor. (Citing Dick, 107 Md. at 17 , -8- 68 A. at 288 ; Jessup, 117 Md. at 123 , 83 A. at 142 )
  • “The [trial] court is given no authority to decide as to the ... sufficiency of [the] evidence.... It is expressly denied the right to determine a question of that nature by” Article X, Section 5’s identical successor. (Citing Dick, 107 Md. at 17, 68 A. at 288; Jessup, 117 Md. at 123, 83 A. at 142)

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

*631

Judge Burke

dissenting: I agree with, the principles of law stated in the opinion of the Court, but I cannot concur in the conclusion reached. A careful examination of the Becord does not, in my opinion, justify the finding that the appellant was in the slightest degree injured by the action of the trial Court. The defease of insanity was not withdrawn from the consideration of the jury, and it is not shown that that defense was not fully presented and argued to the jury, as the counsel for the appellant had a perfect right to do under the form of the verdict given by the Court. Under that form the jury were at liberty to acquit the appellant upon the ground of insanity, if they found him to be-insane at the time of the commission of the crime. Again, there are no facts to warrant the Court, in my judgment, in suspending Buie 36, and the judgment should be affirmed for the failure to comply with that rule.

Upon both grounds indicated the judgment, in my opinion, should be affirmed. I am authorized by J udge Stockbridge to say that he concurs in the views herein expressed.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.