Opinion
[No. 119, September Term, 1963.]
Decided December 10, 1963.
CRIMINAL LAW — Evidence, Sufficiency Of, In Non-Jury Case — If Record Shows Any Evidence, Or Proper Inferences From Evidence, Upon Which Trial Court Could Fairly Find Defendant Guilty Beyond Reasonable Doubt, Then Verdict Should Not Be Disturbed On Appeal — Conviction For Possession, Control And Sale Of Narcotics (Marijuana) — Testimony, If Believed By Trier Of Facts, Held Ample To Support Verdict Of Guilty. pp. 146-147
J.E.B.
Decided December 10, 1963.
Appeal from the Criminal Court of Baltimore (SODARO, J.).
Robert T. Howell was convicted, by the trial court, sitting without a jury, of the possession, control and sale of narcotics (marijuana), and from the judgment entered thereon, he appeals.
Affirmed.
The cause was submitted to BRUNE, C.J., and HENDERSON, PRESCOTT, HORNEY and MARBURY, JJ.
Submitted on brief by George L. Russell, Jr., for the appellant.
Submitted on brief by Thomas B. Finan, Attorney General, Gerard Wm. Wittstadt, Assistant Attorney General, William J. O'Donnell, State's Attorney for Baltimore City, and Andrew J. Graham, Assistant State's Attorney, for the appellee.
The appellant, Robert T. Howell, was tried on March 5, 1963, in the Criminal Court of Baltimore before Judge Sodaro, sitting without a jury, under an indictment charging him with possession, control and sale of narcotics (marijuana). He was convicted and sentenced to five years in the Maryland Penitentiary. On this appeal the sole question presented is whether the evidence adduced at the trial was legally sufficient to sustain the conviction.
Appellant merely requests us to review the law and the evidence under Rule 886. If the record shows any evidence or proper inferences from the evidence upon which the trial court could fairly find the appellant guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt, then the verdict should not be disturbed. Knuckles v. State, 228 Md. 318, 179 A.2d 692.
Officer Marshall testified without contradiction that he was a member of the narcotics squad; that on August 11, 1962, he was introduced to the appellant by a "special employee" named Matthews at 1616 Druid Hill Avenue. Matthews asked the appellant, in Officer Marshall's presence, if he had any marijuana. Appellant said he had it in ten dollar bags. Matthews agreed to purchase a bag, and the officer gave appellant ten dollars from official, advanced funds. Appellant left the room and soon returned with a brown bag which he gave to the officer, and which was later found to contain marijuana. Some time later an arrest warrant (the validity of which is not here challenged) was obtained and appellant was arrested on October 8, 1962.
It is obvious that this testimony, if believed by the trier of the facts, was ample to support the verdict of guilty. Brewer v. State, 229 Md. 251, 182 A.2d 883.
Judgment affirmed.