In Re Appeal No. 1327, Term 1975

Smith, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. It was alleged in this juvenile proceeding that the juvenile assaulted an adult with a baseball bat. The altercation took place on a neighboring vacant lot when the victim allegedly was unhappy after a baseball had dented his car and he made his objections known. The juvenile here contends (1) that the juvenile judge “erred by disposing of this matter solely on the basis of the offense charged without regard to the Juvenile’s rehabilitative needs, and in so doing abused [his] discretion,” and (2) that the evidence presented was insufficient to sustain the finding that he was a delinquent child.

Taking the contentions in inverse order, we conclude upon a review of the record that the trial judge did not err in finding this individual to be a delinquent. Maryland Rule 1086 is applicable. The juvenile suggests that “[unknowingly, the Court’s own comments at the end of the State’s case summarized why, as a matter of law, the Court erred in finding that the Appellant committed a delinquent act,” pointing out that the trial judge stated, “I would say a person would have a right to hit somebody with a baseball bat if it was his property. He could use reasonable force to remove a trespasser.” He then goes on to fashion an argument based upon trespass as well as self-defense.

The trial judge in his final opinion said that he was “totally unable to accept that this [was] a matter of self-defense.” Judge McWilliams pointed out for the Court of Appeals in Racine v. Wheeler, 245 Md. 139, 144 , 225 A. 2d 444 (1967), that a “jury is free to believe only a portion of the evidence of each side” and that “the synthesis apparently accomplished by the jury [in that case was] simply a manifestation of its obvious function.” As it was put in ⁴⁸⁰ Phelps v. Goldberg, 270 Md. 694, 705 , 313 A. 2d 683 (1974), “It is elementary that the trier of fact is not obliged to believe all that he or it hears.” There clearly was sufficient evidence before the trier of fact for him to conclude that this young man improperly struck the complaining witness with a baseball bat and thus was a delinquent child, a term defined by Maryland Code (1974, 1975 Cum. Supp.) § 3-801 (j) Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article as “a child who has committed a delinquent act and requires guidance, treatment, or rehabilitation.” Subsection (i) of the same section defines “delinquent act” as “an act which would be a crime if committed by an adult.” At the final disposition hearing counsel for the juvenile stated that he “ha[d] ... in the courtroom three witnesses and [he] w[ould] proffer as to their testimony ... if the Court so desire[d],” which he then proceeded to do. The transcript of that disposition hearing is far from satisfactory in its quality, having numerous references to inaudibility. It covers approximately three and three-quarter pages.

The trial judge said in his disposition: “Court: Court feels more strongly about it than either the State or Attorney. This is INAUDIBLE have notes recall the testimony. Man was struck on the head as he was turning away INAUDIBLE could have been a fatality. This is a incident....

He asked for the bat. Struck Mr. Taylor’s head and body. I think incidation [sic] of lack of concern.

I