Volume 18 — Maryland Appellate Reports

CRIMINAL LAW — EVIDENCE — <italic>Photographic Viewing —</italic><italic>Impermissible Suggestiveness — Taint Of In-Court</italic><italic>Identification — Due Process Clause — A Claim Of</italic><italic>Impermissible Suggestiveness In A Photographic Viewing Is Based</italic><italic>Upon Due Process Clause And Not Upon Sixth Amendment Right To</italic><italic>Counsel And Must Be Evaluated In Light Of Totality Of Surrounding</italic><italic>Circumstances — In Evaluating Totality Of Circumstances</italic><italic>Reviewing Court Must Make An Independent, Reflective</italic><italic>Constitutional Judgment On Facts Of Case — Convictions Based On</italic><italic>Eyewitness Identification At Trial Following A Pretrial</italic><italic>Identification By Photograph' Will Be Set Aside On That Ground</italic><italic>Only If Photographic Procedure Was So Impermissibly Suggestive As</italic><italic>To Give Rise To A Very Substantial Likelihood Of Irreparable</italic><italic>Misidentification — Danger Will Be Increased If Police Display</italic><italic>To Witness Only The Picture Of A Single Individual Generally</italic><italic>Resembling Person He Saw, Or He Is Shown Pictures Of Several</italic><italic>Persons Among Which Photograph Of A Single Such Individual Recurs</italic><italic>Or Is In Some Way Emphasized</italic>. pp. 268, 270 CRIMINAL LAW — EVIDENCE — <italic>Photographic Viewing —</italic><italic>Impermissible Suggestiveness — Taint Of In-Court</italic><italic>Identification — Conviction Of Rape And Armed Robbery Reversed</italic><italic>— Regardless Of How An Initial</italic><page_number>Page 267</page_number><italic>Misidentification Comes About, Witness Is Apt To Retain In His</italic><italic>Memory Image Of Photograph Rather Than Of Person Actually Seen,</italic><italic>Reducing Trustworthiness Of Subsequent Lineup Or Courtroom</italic><italic>Identification — Where Victim Of Rape And Armed Robbery Was</italic><italic>Barraged With Sets Of Photographs In Which Photograph Of Accused</italic><italic>Was Only One To Recur To Point Of Brainwashing Her, Reviewing</italic><italic>Court Is Not Persuaded Victim's Later Lineup And In-Court</italic><italic>Identification Were Not Products Of Repeated Exposure To</italic><italic>Photographic Viewings — In Totality Of Events In Case Here</italic><italic>Whole Process As To Photographic Identification Was Impermissibly</italic><italic>Suggestive And Evidence Of It Should Have Been Excluded From</italic><italic>Trial</italic>. pp. 267-272 J.A.R.

FALSE PRETENSES — <italic>Article <cross_reference>27, § 140</cross_reference> — False</italic><italic>Representation Of Past Or Existing Fact Required — Crime Is</italic><italic>Committed When A Chattel, Money Or Valuable Security Is Obtained</italic><italic>From Another By Making A False Representation Of A Past Or</italic><italic>Existing Fact With Intent To Defraud And With Knowledge Of Its</italic><italic>Falsity — State Must Prove Every Element Necessary To Sustain</italic><italic>Conviction Of Crime Of Obtaining Money By False Pretenses — In</italic><italic>Circumstances Of Case At Bar State Offered No Evidence Showing</italic><italic>Accused Falsely Represented A Past Or Existing Fact — Lower</italic><italic>Court Erred In Denying Motion For Judgment Of Acquittal —</italic><italic>Judgment Vacated And Case Remanded For A New Trial</italic>. pp. 379-383 CRIMINAL LAW — STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS — FALSE PRETENSES —<italic>Article <cross_reference>27, § 11</cross_reference>; Article 26, § 109 And 110;</italic><italic>Article <cross_reference>27, § 140</cross_reference> — Issue Of Statute Of Limitations</italic><italic>Resolved For Guidance Of Lower Court Upon Remand For New Trial</italic><italic>Where State Offered No Evidence Accused Falsely Represented A</italic><italic>Past Or Existing Fact — Maryland Rule 1085 — In Instant Case</italic><italic>Where Accused Was Tried In Criminal Court Of Baltimore Under</italic><italic>Indictment By Grand Jury Charging False Pretenses, Punishable</italic><italic>Upon Conviction By Confinement In Penitentiary, Statute Of</italic><italic>Limitations Of One Year Does Not Bar His Prosecution In Criminal</italic><italic>Court Of Baltimore, Notwithstanding Amount In Question Was Less</italic><italic>Than $500 And Then Existing Municipal Court Of Baltimore City Was</italic><italic>Also Vested With Jurisdiction But Was Prohibited From Imposing</italic><italic>Imprisonment In Penitentiary As A Punishment — Question Whether</italic><italic>Prosecution Would Be Barred By Limitations Had It Originated In</italic><italic>Then Municipal Court Not Reached By Reviewing Court Here</italic>. pp. 383-384 J.A.R.

PROBATION — SENTENCE — <italic>Revocation Of Probation — Trial</italic><italic>Courts Have A Right To Impose Probation — Article 27, Sections</italic><italic>639-641A — Probation Means A Conditional Exemption From</italic><italic>Imprisonment Allowed Any Prisoner By Suspension Of Sentence And</italic><italic>Condition Of Any Order Of Probation Is Determined Solely By Trial</italic><italic>Judge — Article 41, § 107(f) — Probation Is Status Of</italic><italic>A Convicted Offender During A Period Of Suspension Of Sentence In</italic><italic>Which He Is Given Liberty Conditioned On His Good Behavior And</italic><italic>State By Supervision Attempts To Assist Him To Maintain Good</italic><italic>Behavior — A Sentence Suspended Upon Happening Of A Certain</italic><italic>Condition Cannot After Condition Has Been Satisfied Be Amended So</italic><italic>As To Increase Nature Or Extent Of Condition, Nor May Additional</italic><italic>Conditions Be Imposed As Would Constitute An Increased Sentence</italic><italic>— In Instant Case Where Only Condition Actually Imposed For</italic><italic>Suspension Of Sentence Was That Accused Pay Fines And Costs, And</italic><italic>When That Condition Was Met On Day Following Trial Sentences Of</italic><italic>Imprisonment Were Then Generally Suspended, Court Was Without</italic><italic>Authority To Strike Suspended Sentence And Order Him Confined —</italic><italic>Order Revoking Probation Reversed And Docket Entries Ordered To</italic><italic>Be Corrected To Reflect Sentence In Each Indictment Is Suspended</italic><italic>Upon Payment Of Fines And Costs</italic>. pp. 409-410, 411-413 CRIMINAL LAW — TRIALS — <italic>Transcript Of Trial Unless Shown To Be</italic><italic>In Error Takes Precedence Over Docket Entries Presumably Made At</italic><italic>A Later</italic><page_number>Page 408</page_number><italic>Point In Time — In Legal Contemplation Minutes And Docket</italic><italic>Entries Of Court Proceedings Made By Clerks Are Done Under Eye Of</italic><italic>Court, And By Its Authority And When Not Properly Entered Or</italic><italic>Extended May Be Corrected</italic>. pp. 410-411 J.A.R.