Volume 35 — Maryland Appellate Reports

AUTOMOBILES — <italic>Private Driveway Or Parking Lot — As A Matter Of</italic><italic>Law One Who Operates A Motor Vehicle Upon A Private Driveway,</italic><italic>Road Or Parking Lot When His License Is Cancelled, Suspended,</italic><italic>Refused Or Revoked May Not Be Successfully Prosecuted For</italic><italic>Violation Of Article 66 1/2,</italic> § <italic>6-303 — Test To Be Applied Is</italic><italic>Right Of Public To Travel Thereon, And Not Actual Exercise Of</italic><italic>That Right — Where Tavern Driveway And Parking Lot In Question</italic><italic>Were Maintained Solely For Convenience Of Patrons And Subject To</italic><italic>Regulation By Owners Of Property, Private Parking And Driveway Do</italic><italic>Not Fall Within Scope Of "Used By The Public For Purposes Of</italic><italic>Vehicular Travel," Article 66 1/2,</italic> § <italic>1-132</italic>. pp. 150-154 AUTOMOBILES — <italic>Private Property — "Spinning Wheels" In</italic><italic>Violation Of Article 66 1/2,</italic> § <italic>11-1117, Is Within Ambit Of "Rules</italic><italic>Of The Road" And Applies Even On "Private Property Which Is Used</italic><italic>By The Public In</italic><page_number>Page 149</page_number><italic>General," Except In Garrett And Somerset Counties — Article 66</italic><italic>1/2,</italic> § <italic>11-101(3) — Accused's Conviction For Such Violation Was</italic><italic>Proper</italic>. pp. 154-155 J.A.R.

LIBEL — INSTRUCTIONS TO JURY — <italic>Qualified Privilege — Where</italic><italic>Evidence Adduced Was Sufficient To Generate Factual Question As</italic><italic>To Existence Of Qualified Privilege Exercised By Local Union</italic><italic>Publication It Was Within Province Of Trial Judge To Submit To</italic><italic>Jury Issue As To Whether Privilege Was Exceeded By Extent To</italic><italic>Which Publication Was Disseminated Or That Such Privilege Was</italic><italic>Forfeited Because It Was Abused — No Reversible Error In Trial</italic><italic>Court's Instruction Relating To Qualified Privilege</italic>. p. 178 LIBEL — DAMAGES — <italic>Compensatory Damages — In Libel Per Se</italic><italic>Damage To Reputation Presumed — Jury Required, In Awarding</italic><italic>Compensatory Damages, To Look To Evidence Of Actual Injury —</italic><italic>Evidence Held Legally Sufficient To Establish That Aggrieved</italic><italic>Party Suffered Actual Injury Due, In Part, To Personal</italic><italic>Humiliation, Embarrassment, Mental Anguish And Suffering — No</italic><italic>Error In Trial Court's Refusal To Instruct Jury There Was No</italic><italic>Evidence Of Compensable Damages</italic>. pp. 179-180 LIBEL — DAMAGES — <italic>Punitive Damages — To Support Award Of</italic><italic>Punitive Damages There Must Be Award Of At Least Nominal</italic><italic>Compensatory Damages — Claim That Award Of $1.00 Was Nominal And</italic><italic>Not Compensatory Thus Precluding Award For Punitive Damages Held</italic><italic>Invalid</italic>. pp. 180-181 LIBEL — INSTRUCTIONS TO JURY — <italic>Held Non-Inflammatory Nor</italic><italic>Prejudicial Where Trial Judge, After Making Specific Reference To</italic><italic>Certain Evidence Adduced, Admonished Jury Not To Rely Upon</italic><italic>Court's Recollection But That They Were Ultimate Deciders Of</italic><italic>Facts Of Case</italic>. p. 182 H.E.F.

CRIMINAL LAW — EVIDENCE — <italic>Cross-Examination Of Character</italic><italic>Witness As To Familiarity With Previous Criminal Charges Against</italic><italic>Accused — Harmless Error — In Accused's Jury Trial For Rape Judge</italic><italic>Erred In Permitting Accused's Character Witness To Be Questioned</italic><italic>On Cross-Examination About A Previous Accusation Against Accused</italic><italic>Of Rape And Sodomy — Here, Where Central Issue Was Whether</italic><italic>Alleged Victim Consented To Sexual Intercourse And Credibility</italic><italic>Was A Critical Factor In Determining Guilt, And No Overwhelming</italic><italic>Evidence Of Accused's Guilt Was Produced, This Court Upon An</italic><italic>Independent Review Of Record Finds Such Erroneously Admitted</italic><italic>Evidence So Inherently Prejudicial That It Is Not Persuaded</italic><italic>Beyond A Reasonable Doubt That It Was Harmless</italic>. pp. 204-208 J.A.R.

<p>September Term, 1976.]</p>