# Deems v. State

> Court of Appeals of Maryland · January 28, 1916 · 127 Md. 624

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3484912

## Case

- **Full name:** Marion Deems v. . State of Maryland.
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Maryland
- **Decided:** January 28, 1916
- **Citations:** 127 Md. 624; 96 A. 878; 1916 Md. LEXIS 40
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Burke
- **Judges:** Urner, Boto, Briscoe, Burke, Thomas, Pattison, Drner, Stookbridge
- **Cited by:** 23 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3484912

## Opinion text

*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 The defease of insanity was not withdrawn from the consideration of the jury, and it is not shown that that defense was not fully presented and argued to the jury, as the counsel for the appellant had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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3484912. Public record. Not legal advice.