Holtz v. State

Per Curiam. Merlin Carl Ploltz, the appellant, complains of a conviction for kidnapping because (1) the trial was held between the hours of 8:00 P.M. and 11:00 P.M. on May 11, 1966, and (2) at the conclusion of the charge, the State’s Attorney ³⁶⁰ abandoned the assault and battery count in the indictment which constituted an essential ingredient of the kidnapping. In view of the questions raised it is unnecessary to detail the facts concerning the crime. The assault and battery charged was a part of the kidnapping.

At 6:20 P.M. on May 11, 1966, the court inquired of the defendant and his counsel as to their desire to proceed with the trial that evening or to have the case reassigned on a subsequent date. Both Holtz and his counsel stated it was their desire to proceed with the trial of the case. After dinner recess the trial began at 7:58 P.M. and was concluded at 11:00 P.M. The matter of the hours during which a trial may be held has been discussed by the Court of Appeals of Maryland in one case, Plank v. Summers, 203 Md. 552 , 102 A. 2d 262 at page 263 the Court stated: “The appellants contend that because the trial was started at 10 A.M. on Friday, May 1st, and was submitted to the jury at 2:18 A.M. on Saturday, May 2nd, the jurors became physically and mentally weary and thereby were not permitted to fairly deliberate the case. Of course, no case should be carried for such a length of time that the judges, jury and lawyers cannot properly function.

However, the widest discretion has been given the trial courts in the conduct of trials and this discretion should not be disturbed unless it is clearly abused. In the instant case no objection seems to have been raised during the course of the trial to its duration by the appellants here or by their attorney or by the jurors.” Here there was not only a failure to object but an affirmative agreement that the trial should proceed. We cannot review an action taken by the trial court in the absence of an objection, Maryland Rule 1085. After there was an exception to the instructions of the court concerning the assault and battery charge, the following occurred : “THE COURT: Very well, gentlemen, I will straighten it out. ³⁶¹ MR.

FEMIA: (State’s Attorney) I will abandon assault and battery right now. I will make it easy on you.