From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Heffner v. Warden

Court of Appeals of Maryland
Nov 2, 1956
211 Md. 638 (Md. 1956)

Opinion

[H.C. No. 25, October Term, 1956.]

Decided November 2, 1956.

HABEAS CORPUS — Instructing Jury as to Applicable Law. An objection that the trial court omitted to instruct the jury with respect to the law applicable to the crime with which petitioner was charged, even if it were valid, would go only to the regularity of the proceeding and could not be raised on habeas corpus. pp. 638-639

J.E.B.

Decided November 2, 1956.

Habeas corpus proceeding by Edgar Franklin Heffner, III, against the Warden of the Maryland House of Correction. From a refusal of the writ, petitioner applied for leave to appeal.

Application denied.

Reporter's Note: Certiorari denied, 353 U.S. 914.

Before BRUNE, C.J., and COLLINS, HENDERSON, HAMMOND and PRESCOTT, JJ.


This is an application for leave to appeal from a denial of a writ of habeas corpus. The petitioner, Edgar F. Heffner, III, was tried and convicted by a jury in Prince George's County of the crime of perverted sexual practice and assault. The petition for the writ of habeas corpus was directed to Judge John B. Gray, Jr., who had presided at the petitioner's trial.

Petitioner's sole complaint is that the trial court omitted to instruct the jury with respect to the law applicable to the crime with which the defendant was charged. The record indicates that the only instructions given related to the several verdicts which the jury might render. Article XV, Section 5, of the Constitution of Maryland provides that the jury shall be the judge of the law as well as of the facts in criminal cases. It permits, but does not require, the giving of advisory instructions. Rule 6 (b) of our Rules of Criminal Practice and Procedure requires the trial judge to give such instructions if requested by either side to do so, but no such request is shown here. See Schanker v. State, 208 Md. 15, 116 A.2d 363, and cases therein cited. The petitioner's objection, if valid (and we certainly do not intimate that it is) would go only to the regularity of the proceeding, and, as we have repeatedly held, could therefore not be raised on habeas corpus.

Application denied, with costs.


Summaries of

Heffner v. Warden

Court of Appeals of Maryland
Nov 2, 1956
211 Md. 638 (Md. 1956)
Case details for

Heffner v. Warden

Case Details

Full title:HEFFNER v . WARDEN OF MARYLAND HOUSE OF CORRECTION

Court:Court of Appeals of Maryland

Date published: Nov 2, 1956

Citations

211 Md. 638 (Md. 1956)
126 A.2d 304

Citing Cases

Matthews v. Warden

This contention goes to the regularity of the proceedings at trial, and may be reviewed on direct appeal if…

Giles v. State

Lenoir v. State, 197 Md. 495, 80 A.2d 3 (1951). See also Heffner v. Warden, 211 Md. 638, 126 A.2d 304 (1956),…