Halstead v. State

Per Curiam. William Halstead, the appellant, was convicted of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle in the Criminal Court of Baltimore, Judge James K. Cullen presiding without a jury. In view of the contentions it will be unnecessary to review the facts of the case. Halstead first contends that the trial judge should have ordered a mistrial after the State offered into evidence a waiver of jurisdiction by the Juvenile Court.

His reasoning is that under Maryland Rules 705 and 911 the waiver must be entered on the docket entries but need not be offered into evidence. He further reasons that the attempt to enter the waiver into evidence was a bad faith effort on part of the Assistant State’s Attorney to call to the attention of the court the fact that Hal- ¹²³ ■stead was considered “a bad boy” by the juvenile judge who allegedly, by custom and usage, did not waive juvenile jurisdiction unless he, the judge, considered the juvenile “a bad boy.” There are a number of answers to Halstead’s contentions: (1) His objection to the evidence was sustained by the trial judge; there was no motion for a mistrial; therefore, under Maryland Rule 1085 there is nothing before this court to review; (2) there is nothing in the record to support the alleged custom and usage and (3) there is nothing in the record to show the bad faith of the