Opinion

Mitchell v. State

  • 132 Md. App. 312
  • 752 A.2d 653
  • 2000 Md. App. LEXIS 89
Court
Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
Filed
Jun 1, 2000
Status
Published
Author
Murphy
On the bench
Hollander, Murphy
Cited by
4 cases
Authority
More cited than 9.1%

Reversed on other grounds by Mitchell v. State, 363 Md. 130 (2001)

court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion for a mistrial where a witness made an isolated, unresponsive statement that defendant had been “locked up”

How later courts described this case

  • court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion for a mistrial where a witness made an isolated, unresponsive statement that defendant had been “locked up”

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

MURPHY, Chief Judge,

dissenting.

I agree that the trial judge did not abuse her discretion in refusing to grant a mistrial. I also agree that the evidence was sufficient to support appellant’s convictions of the offenses properly submitted to the jury. I dissent, however, from that portion of the majority opinion that affirms appellant’s conviction for conspiracy to commit second degree murder.

The State’s evidence against appellant was sufficient to support a conviction for conspiracy to commit first degree murder, but the trial judge granted appellant’s motion for judgment of acquittal on that charge. That ruling, in my judgment, disposed of the conspiracy to murder charges. The conspiracy to commit second degree murder should not have been submitted to the jury.

*363 Conspiracy to commit murder means conspiracy to commit first degree murder. It is the agreement to kill that constitutes “the premeditating factor.” Bell v. State, 48 Md.App. 669, 680 , 429 A.2d 300 , cert. denied, 291 Md. 771 (1981) (citations omitted).

Deliberation and premeditation are essential elements of an agreement to participate in an intentional killing. In this case, the jurors were instructed that, to convict appellant of conspiracy to commit murder in the second degree, “the State must prove that [appellant] ... entered into the agreement with the intent that murder in the second degree ... be committed.” In accordance with those instructions, the jurors convicted appellant of a charge that the court had already resolved in his favor. I would therefore reverse (only) appellant’s conviction for conspiracy to commit second degree murder.

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.