Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

2 Md. App. 482

235 A.2d 316

Grice v. State

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

Decided November 27, 1967

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · decided 1967-11-27

Relies on Chapman v. State of California

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1967-11-27

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently December 1986

13 state decisions

80196719701980decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1 John Carroll Grice, the appellant, was convicted of murder in the first degree in the Criminal Court of Baltimore before Judge Meyer M. Cardin presiding without a jury. Grice complains that there was insufficient evidence to support the verdict, and that hearsay testimony was admitted.

¶2 We need to cite only a small part of the testimony to show that there was sufficient evidence to support the verdict. Marjorie Daves testified that immediately after the homicide, the appellant ran into her home and stated that he had “just killed a man” and the police would be there in a few minutes; and further that he washed blood stains from a saw tooth knife, put it back into its sheath, and examined a wallet containing papers belonging to the deceased. Doris Wilson testified that she and a friend took Grice home; that enroute when queried about why he had stabbed the man up the street, he stated: “I wanted to see if he had any scratch.” Other evidence established the homicide. Under Maryland Rule 1086 we are precluded from reversing a trial judge sitting without a jury on a question of sufficiency of the evidence unless he was clearly erroneous. Obviously, there was no such error in this case.

¶3 The second complaint concerns the admission of testimony by a police officer that he took the wallet to a nephew of the *484 deceased who identified it as the property of the deceased by the papers in it. While the admission of such testimony was obvious error, the wallet was in evidence and contained papers belonging to the deceased. Under these circumstances we have no difficulty in finding that the admission of the testimony was harmless. See Chapman v. California, 386 U. S. 18, 87 S. Ct. 824, 17 L. Ed. 2d 705.

¶4 Judgment affirmed.

/2/mdapp/482 · .json · Public domain