Volume 16 — Maryland Appellate Reports

<p>September Term, 1971.]</p>

<p>September Term, 1972.]</p> <p>September Term, 1972.]</p>

CRIMINAL LAW — INSTRUCTIONS TO JURY — <italic>"Allen Charge" As Part</italic><italic>Of Original Charge To Jury — Ultimate Test Is Whether Charge</italic><italic>Would Tend To Coerce Jury Into Reaching A Verdict Contrary To Any</italic><italic>Individual Juror's Free Will And Judgment — Question To Be</italic><italic>Determined Is Whether Instruction Helped To Force An Agreement</italic><italic>Which Would Not Otherwise Have Been Reached, Or Whether It Merely</italic><italic>Initiated A New Train Of Real Deliberation Which Ended Any</italic><italic>Disagreement And Enabled Each Juror Conscientiously And Freely To</italic><italic>Subscribe To A Unanimous Verdict — As Part Of Original Charge</italic><italic>It Is Proper To Instruct That While Verdict Must Represent Each</italic><italic>Juror's Opinion, If A Majority Differ, Minority Should Consider</italic><italic>Whether Their Opinion Might Be Wrong Since Not Concurred In By</italic><italic>Majority, And If Safeguarded By Sufficient Reference To Duty Of</italic><italic>Each Juror To Ultimately Base His Judgment On His Own</italic><italic>Convictions</italic>. pp. 541-542 CRIMINAL LAW — INSTRUCTIONS TO JURY — <italic>"Allen Charge" Prior To</italic><italic>Deliberation — Instruction Given In Instant Case Prior To Jury</italic><italic>Retiring To Consider Verdict Was Held More Than Ample To Remind</italic><italic>Each Juror Of His Duty Not To Relinquish His Position, Whether</italic><italic>Majority Or Minority View; And Of His Duty To Vote In Accordance</italic><italic>With His Own Conscientious Conviction — Nothing In Instruction</italic><italic>Given Here Was Found Violative Of Allen, Nor Of Accused's</italic><italic>Constitutional Right To A Fair And Impartial Trial</italic>. pp. 542-543 CRIMINAL LAW — <italic>Trials — Motion For Mistrial — Judicial</italic><italic>Discretion — Questions And Comments Of Judge Allegedly Made In</italic><italic>A Prosecutorial Demeanor Not Objected To Are Not Reviewable On</italic><italic>Appeal — Maryland Rule 1085 — Where Judge Asked Witness</italic><italic>Whether She Told Police That Accused Shot Deceased And In</italic><italic>Answering Yes Volunteered She Took A Lie Detector Test, And</italic><page_number>Page 534</page_number><italic>Jury Was Admonished To Disregard Any Reference To A Lie Detector</italic><italic>Test And Not To Speculate About It, There Was No Abuse Of</italic><italic>Discretion By Judge Putting Questions To Her Or In Denying Motion</italic><italic>For A Mistrial — Trial Judge's Alleged Error In Interrupting</italic><italic>State's Qualifying A Witness As A Chemist As Having Gone Far</italic><italic>Enough And Stating That If Jury Was Not Impressed, It Will Never</italic><italic>Be, Was Surmounted By Willingness Of Defense Counsel, Prior To</italic><italic>State's Questioning, To Stipulate Chemist Was Qualified And Where</italic><italic>No Cross-Examination To Contrary Was Made</italic>. pp. 543-545 MANSLAUGHTER — <italic>Evidence — Alibi — Test For Sufficiency Of</italic><italic>Evidence In A Jury Trial Is Whether Evidence, If Believed, Either</italic><italic>Shows Directly, Circumstantially, Or Supports A Rational</italic><italic>Inference Of, Facts To Be Proved From Which Jury Could Fairly Be</italic><italic>Convinced, Beyond A Reasonable Doubt, Of Accused's Guilt — Jury</italic><italic>Is Not Required To Believe An Accused Nor His Alibi — In</italic><italic>Instant Case Where Testimony Placed Accused At Scene Of Slaying,</italic><italic>And Immediately Following A Remark Accused Was Heard To Make To</italic><italic>Decedent A Shot Was Fired Killing Decedent, And A Chemist</italic><italic>Established Gunpowder Residue Was On Right Hand Of Accused In</italic><italic>Sufficient Quantity To Conclude He Had Recently Fired A Hand Gun,</italic><italic>Evidence Was Sufficient, If Believed, To Sustain Conviction Of</italic><italic>Manslaughter</italic>. pp. 545-546 J.A.R.