Volume 28 — Maryland Appellate Reports

ENTRAPMENT — <italic>Inducement Means Someone Employed For Purpose Of</italic><italic>Prosecution Had Induced Accused To Commit Offense Charged Which</italic><italic>He Would Not Have Otherwise Committed — Entrapment Occurs Only</italic><italic>When Criminal Conduct Was Product Of Creative Activity Of</italic><italic>Law-Enforcement Agents — That Police, Directly Or Through Their</italic><italic>Agent, Induced Accused To Commit Offense Charged And That</italic><italic>Accused's Criminal Conduct Was Due To Police Persuasion And Not</italic><italic>To His Own Readiness To Commit The Offense Must Be Raised As</italic><italic>Issues By Evidence Sufficient To Support Findings Favorable To</italic><italic>Accused Before Such Issues Are Submitted To Trier Of Facts;</italic><italic>Sufficiency Of Evidence Would Be Raised In A Jury Trial By Motion</italic><italic>For Judgment Of Acquittal</italic>. pp. 245-246, 248-251 ENTRAPMENT — INSTRUCTIONS TO JURY — <italic>Defense Of Entrapment —</italic><italic>Presiding Judge Was Clearly Correct In Declining Defense Request</italic><italic>To Instruct Jury On Law Of Entrapment Where There Was Utterly No</italic><italic>Showing Of Inducement And No Legally Cognizable Issue Involving</italic><italic>Law Of Entrapment — Defense Of Entrapment May Be Raised Only By</italic><italic>Evidence, And Upon Facts In Case Here There Was No Evidence To</italic><italic>Raise It</italic>. pp. 251-255 CRIMINAL LAW — EVIDENCE — <italic>Chain Of Custody — Trial Judge's</italic><italic>Remarks — Chain Of Custody Of Suspected Heroin In Circumstances</italic><italic>Of Instant Case Clearly Excluded Any Reasonable Probability</italic><italic>Someone Tampered With Material In Question — Weight Discrepancy</italic><italic>Of .2 Grams Of Heroin Did Not Indicate Break In Chain Of Custody</italic><italic>Nor Lead To Conclusion Substance Analyzed By Chemist Was Not Same</italic><italic>As Obtained By State Trooper — Trial Judge's Comments That State</italic><italic>Trooper Was Not Expert Who Could Explain Why Scale Used In</italic><italic>Weighing Heroin Did Not Work Right And Was Not Responsible For It</italic><italic>Were Not Prejudicial To Accused</italic>. pp. 255-256 J.A.R.

TAX SALES — <italic>Quantum Of Interest Acquired By Purchaser At Tax</italic><italic>Sale — Article 81, § 99A — Title Derived From Ratified Tax</italic><italic>Sale Not Only Includes Interest Of Persons To Whom Property Had</italic><italic>Been Assessed For Taxes On Account Of Which It Was Sold But Where</italic><italic>Sale Appears To Have Been Valid Grantee In Tax Deed Becomes</italic><italic>Vested With New And Complete Title Under Independent Grant From</italic><italic>Sovereign Authority Which Bars Or Extinguishes All Prior Titles,</italic><italic>Interests And Encumbrances Of Private Persons — Fact That</italic><italic>Property Was Assessed To Owners Holding It Under Unrecorded Deed</italic><italic>Not Sufficient Ground Upon Which To Determine Title Derived Under</italic><italic>Tax Sale Be Unmarketable — In Instant Case County Commissioners</italic><italic>Purchased Fee Simple Interest In Property Unencumbered By Any</italic><italic>Prior Claims And Accordingly Same Interest Vested In Purchaser By</italic><italic>Virtue Of Tax Deed To Her From Treasurer Who Sold Property At Tax</italic><italic>Sale — Chancellor's Holding That Purchaser At Tax Sale Acquired</italic><italic>No Better Title Than Was Held By Person Assessed Not Law</italic><italic>Applicable In Maryland — Courts Without Jurisdiction To Modify Or</italic><italic>Set Aside Tax Sale. Article 81, § 99A, Except Where Shown</italic><italic>That Court Ratifying Sale Lacked Jurisdiction Or Where It Is</italic><italic>Shown By Clear And Convincing Proof That Sale As Ratified Was</italic><italic>Procured By Fraud Perpetrated By Purchaser</italic>. pp. 344, 346 APPEAL — <italic>Article 81, § 99A — Claim That Statute Was</italic><italic>Violative Of Equal Protection Clause Of Fourteenth Amendment Not</italic><italic>Before Court On Review Since Issue Was Not Raised Or Decided</italic><italic>Below</italic>. pp. 346-347 H.E.F.

ADVERSE POSSESSION — <italic>Defined — Interruption To Continuity Of</italic><italic>Adverse Possession By Claimed Entry For Purposes Of Survey —</italic><italic>Entry To Have Such Effect Must Be Actual Entry Within Period Of</italic><italic>Limitation And Must Be With Clear And Unequivocal Intent To</italic><italic>Invade And Challenge Right Of Holder Of Adverse Possession And</italic><italic>Retake Possession — Whether Survey Will Interrupt Continuity Of</italic><italic>Adverse Possession Sufficiently To Toll Running Of Limitations</italic><italic>Must Necessarily Be Decided According To Facts And Circumstances</italic><italic>In Each Case — Generally. A Survey Without More Is Not Sufficient</italic><italic>In And Of Itself To Interrupt Continuity; However, In Instant</italic><italic>Case This Precise Issue Was Not Required To Be Determined For</italic><italic>Adverse Possession Was Found To Be Otherwise Interrupted By A</italic><italic>Successful Defense Of Subsequent Suit In Trespass</italic>. pp. 387-389, 391-394, 396 ADVERSE POSSESSION — <italic>Continuity Of Adverse Possession — Prior</italic><italic>Adjudication Of Title In Record Holder In Suit At Law In Trespass</italic><italic>To Try Title Brought By Adverse Possessor Carried Constructive</italic><italic>Possession With</italic><page_number>Page 380</page_number><italic>Title In True Owner And Interrupted Continuity Of Adverse</italic><italic>Possession — Since Judgment Carried With It Constructive</italic><italic>Possession By Record Owner The Effect Was Likewise To Wipe Slate</italic><italic>Clean Of Prior Adverse Possession Thus Chancellor's Dismissal Of</italic><italic>Bill Of Complaint To Quiet Title, Establish Boundary Lines Based</italic><italic>Upon Adverse Possession Held To Be Proper — Failure Of True Owner</italic><italic>To Physically Retake Possession And/Or Reenter Did Not Impair His</italic><italic>Right To Do So</italic>. pp. 394, 396 H.E.F.