Charles v. State

Thompson, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Harold Lath Charles, the appellant, complains of a conviction of carnal knowledge and assault in a jury trial in the Cir ¹¹² cuit Court for Cecil County, alleging an insufficiency of evidence to support the conviction and that the trial judge committed error because he advised a potential defense witness as to his rights under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Charles’ argument that his motion for acquittal at the conclusion of the testimony should have been granted, is based on the proposition that testimony of the fifteen year old prosecuting witness was insufficient to present a jury question. We have repeatedly held that testimony of the victim of a crime is sufficient to support a conviction for rape.

Johnson v. State, 3 Md. App. 219 , 238 A. 2d 295 , Reed v. State, 1 Md. App. 662 , 232 A. 2d 550 . To the same effect see Booth v. State, 225 Md. 71 , 169 A. 2d 388 . Charles’ second contention that it was error for the trial court to warn one of his prospective witnesses of his rights under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, was not in any manner presented to the trial court, and is therefore not before us for review, Maryland Rule 1085. The only relief requested of the trial judge was that the jury be instructed that they could not draw an unfavorable inference against Charles from the refusal of the prospective witness to testify.

The request was granted. In addition, Charles made no proffer of what testimony was to be expected from the witness nor did he proceed to question the witness question by question after the privilege was claimed so that the court could properly rule on each question. In Gaylord v. State, 2 Md. App. 571 , 235 A. 2d 783 we declined relief in a similar situation, saying at 2 Md. App. 571 at 575 : “It may he argued the lower court was perhaps overzealous in protecting the rights of the witnesses, Shackleford and Norris, but it must be remembered that they were both infants and were entitled to be informed that their testimony could seriously tend to incriminate them.” In oral argument Charles raises more serious questions. He alleges, and it was conceded by the Attorney General, that at the time of the original trial Charles’ trial counsel had been ¹¹³ elected State’s Attorney for Cecil County; but that he had not at that time taken his