Bennett v. State

Per Curiam. Convicted of the rape of a fifteen-year old girl and sentenced to a term of fifteen years, the appellant contends that the evidence presented to a three-judge court was insufficient to show force and a lack of consent. We do not agree. There was evidence to support the verdict.

Cf. Hazel v. State, 221 Md. 464 . The major contention seems to be that court-appointed counsel at the trial was incompetent, relying upon Smallwood v. Warden, 205 F. Supp. 325 . That case is readily distinguishable on the facts.

The election of the accused to take the stand, as he did, and to admit the intercourse and penetration, made it a matter of trial tactics whether to object to leading questions or to call a certain witness. Cf. Greene v. State, 233 Md. 274 . The criminal record of the appellant could not have been kept out after he took the stand.

Likewise, a stipulation as to the place where the alleged act of intercourse took place, was a matter of trial tactics. We find nothing to show that the representation was so inadequate as to make the trial a farce. That, of course, is the test. See Stevens v. State, 230 Md. 47, 49 , and cases cited.

Judgment affirmed.