Opinion
[No. 50, October Term, 1948.]
Decided January 12, 1949.
Criminal Law — Conviction on Uncorroborated Evidence of Accomplices — Legal Sufficiency of Evidence To Convict or to Corroborate, Reviewable on Motion for New Trial, but Not on Appeal — Applies to Non-Jury Case — Instructions to Jury in Criminal Case — Court Cannot Be Required to Give — Appeal — None from Action on Motion for New Trial in Criminal Case — Record Must Show Ruling Objected to by Appellant.
A conviction in a criminal case on the uncorroborated evidence of accomplices ought not to stand, but, in Maryland, the jury are the judges of law, as well as of fact, including the legal questions of sufficiency of evidence to convict or to corroborate evidence of accomplices. The verdict of the jury on such questions is not reviewable on appeal. The verdict of the court, sitting as a jury, is like the verdict of a jury in this respect. pp. 10-11
A court cannot be required to instruct the jury in a criminal case even though the Court of Appeals has recommended that the trial courts adopt the practice of granting advisory instructions advising or cautioning jurors against conviction without corroboration. p. 11
The question of sufficiency of corroboration can be reviewed on motion for a new trial but action on such a motion is not reviewable on appeal. p. 11
Where the record on appeal presents no ruling by the trial court objected to by appellant, there is nothing before the Court and the appeal will be dismissed. p. 11
Decided January 12, 1949.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Prince George's County (MARBURY, J.).
Maxwell Swann was convicted of breaking a storehouse with intent to steal and carry away goods and chattels of another of the value of $25 or more and he appeals.
Appeal dismissed.
The cause was argued before MARBURY, C.J., DELAPLAINE, COLLINS, HENDERSON, and MARKELL, JJ.
Charles W. Main, with whom was George T. Burroughs on the brief, for the appellant.
Joseph D. Buscher, Special Assistant Attorney General, with whom were Hall Hammond, Attorney General, and A. Gwynn Bowie, State's Attorney for Prince George's County, on the brief, for the appellee.
Appellant and Clarence Ross were found guilty by the court, sitting as a jury, of breaking the storehouse (a tavern) of Edwin A. Blandford with intent to steal, take and carry away certain goods and chattels of another of the value of $25 or more. Appellant was sentenced to ten years in the penitentiary. From this judgment he appeals.
Charles Joseph Hawkins and Paul Revere Hodge were indicted for receiving stolen goods and after appellant's conviction pleaded guilty and were given suspended sentences. Appellant says he was convicted on the uncorroborated testimony of Hawkins and Hodge, accomplices in his alleged crime. We may assume, without deciding, that Hawkins and Hodge may be regarded as accomplices. Luery v. State, 116 Md. 284, 295, 296, 81 A. 681, 685, Ann. Cas. 1913d 161.
This court has approved the view that a conviction on the uncorroborated evidence of accomplices ought not to stand. Lanasa v. State, 109 Md. 602, 613, 71 A. 1058. But in Maryland the jury are the judges of law, as well as of fact, including the legal questions of sufficiency of evidence to convict or to corroborate evidence of accomplices. The verdict of the jury on such questions is not reviewable on appeal. Under existing practice, the verdict of the court, sitting as a jury, is like the verdict of a jury in this respect ( Meyerson v. State, 181 Md. 105, 112, 28 A.2d 833; Wolf v. State, 143 Md. 489-504, 122 A. 641) and a court cannot be required to instruct the jury, even though this court has recommended that the trial courts adopt the practice of granting advisory instructions advising or cautioning jurors against conviction without corroboration. Luery v. State, 116 Md. 284, 293, 294, 81 A. 681, 685, Ann. Cas. 1913d 161. The question of sufficiency of corroboration can also be reviewed on motion for a new trial, but action on such a motion is not reviewable on appeal. Wolf v. State, supra.
In the instant case no ruling of the lower court, reviewable on appeal or not, is even presented for review. The record shows that at the conclusion of the State's case, counsel for appellant "commented on lack of corroboration of testimony of Hodge and Hawkins", but does not show that any objection was made to any ruling by the court. Since the record presents no ruling by the court objected to by appellant, there is nothing before us and the appeal must be dismissed. Davis v. State, 189 Md. 269, 55 A.2d 702.
Appeal dismissed, with costs.