Volume 7 — Maryland Appellate Reports

ACCOMPLICES AND ACCESSORIES — <italic>Accused May Not Be Convicted</italic><italic>Solely Upon Uncorroborated Testimony Of Accomplice — Burden Of</italic><italic>Proving That Witness Was Accomplice — Refusal To Grant</italic><italic>Requested Instructions Held Reversible Error</italic>. An accused may not be convicted of a crime solely upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice; there must be corroborative evidence supporting the testimony of the accomplice as to some of the material facts, tending to show that the accused was either identified with the perpetrators of the crime or participated in the commission of the crime itself. p. 103 The fact that a witness is an accomplice must be shown by proof, the burden thereof being on the defendant who asserts it, although such proof need only be by a preponderance of the evidence and not beyond a reasonable doubt. p. 103 Where the testimony of an accomplice, who was the State's principal witness at appellant's trial for murder, constituted formidable evidence of appellant's guilt, trial court's refusal to instruct the jury that appellant could not be convicted upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice and that the law required that such testimony be closely scrutinized and accepted with caution was reversible error. pp. 104-107 INSTRUCTIONS — <italic>Function — Duty Of Court To Give Advisory</italic><italic>Instruction On Every Essential Point Of Law Supported By</italic><italic>Evidence</italic>. The function of a jury instruction is, in part, to declare what rule of law will apply to any set of facts which may be found from the evidence. p. 105 It is incumbent upon the trial judge, when requested in a criminal case, to give an advisory instruction to the jury on every essential point of law supported by the evidence. Rule 756b. p. 105

MANSLAUGHTER — <italic>Evidence — Admission Of Evidence Of Prior</italic><italic>Conviction Of Drunkenness Held Reversible Error</italic>. The admission of evidence of a prior conviction for drunkenness at appellant's trial for manslaughter by automobile was reversible error, where it was apparent that such evidence had been offered for the purpose of showing a propensity to drink and therefore to show that appellant was probably drunk at the time of the accident. p. 121

CONFESSIONS — <italic>Determination Of Admissibility Is Left To Trial</italic><italic>Court — Waiver Of Miranda Rights</italic>. The determination of the admissibility of a confession is left largely to the trial court and will not be disturbed in the absence of a manifest abuse of discretion. p. 130 Appellant waived his <italic>Miranda</italic> rights, where there was no allegation of mistreatment, where there was evidence rebutting an alleged promise or inducement, and where there was testimony showing that the interrogation was undertaken at appellant's own<page_number>Page 122</page_number> initiation. [<italic>Miranda v. Arizona,</italic> <cross_reference>384 U.S. 436</cross_reference>, 86 Sup. Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).] p. 130