Goldman v. State

Briscoe, J. delivered the opinion of the Court. The appellants were indicted in the Criminal Court of Baltimore for gambling, and on the first day of July, 1891, after a trial before a jury, were convicted. There were two others — James Hagan and John Murphy — who were indicted jointly with them for the same offence, but they were acquitted. Three exceptions were taken by the appellants during the trial to the rulings of the Court, and the questions for our consideration arise upon these exceptions.

After all the testimony on the part of the State had been ‘ taken, the traversers moved the Court to direct the jury to render a verdict of not guilty as to one of the traversers, James Hagan. The State's Attorney consented to confess a verdict of not guilty as to him, Avliereupon the traversers moved that this Arerdict be at once recorded, but the State's Attorney objected to its being- taken at that stage of the proceeding, and until the jury passed upon the Avhole case. This objection was sustained by the Court, and this forms the basis of the first exception. The second exception, which Ave shall consider with the first, was taken to the refusal of the Court to instruct the jury to render a verdict of not guilty as to John Murphy on the ground that the evidence was insufficient to convict him. ⁶²³ Now, it is too well established in this State,- to he seriously questioned, that “in the trial of all criminal cases the jury shall be the judges of law as well as of fact.” This is provided by Article 15, section 5, of the Constitution of 1867, and has too often been presented and passed upon by this Court to need, in this case, more than a reference to some of the numerous authorities thereon.

This doctrine was fully maintained in the cases of Broll vs. The State, 45 Md., 356 ; Bloomer vs. State, 48 Md., 521 ; Forwood vs. State, 49 Md., 531 ; World vs. State, 50 Md., 49 ; and Bell, alias Kimball vs. State, 57 Md., 108 . In all of these cases it was held that a jury would not he hound hy any instructions given hy the Court, but could disregard them. The Court may, in its discretion, advise the jury as to the law and legal effect of the evidence, hut is