Jacobs v. State
Per Curiam. Judge Harlan, in the Criminal Court of Baltimore, found the appellant, Martin Jacobs, guilty of assault with intent to murder the prosecuting witness, Donald E. Stahl. On February 4, 1964, Jacobs became involved in an argument with Stahl at “Mary’s Bar,” at Pratt and Wolfe Streets 649 in Baltimore City over a shuffle board game. Both men had been drinking and Mary Krupa, the proprietress, to avoid any trouble at her place, asked Jacobs if he had a knife.
Jacobs indicated that he had and the proprietress asked Jacobs to give it to her. He did this. The proprietress had been warned by a witness, Donald Canning, to “break it up” as “she was going to have some trouble.” Canning testified that he had heard Jacobs call Stahl a foul name and state that if Stahl would “ ‘slip out the door I’ll cut you’ or ‘I’ll cut you fast’ or words to that effect.” This argument, however, was confined to verbal abuse. Stahl and others left “Mary’s Bar” and, with others, went over to “Sophie’s Bar” at Pratt and Durham Streets, near “Mary’s Bar.” Stahl played one or two games of shuffle board with Canning and ordered a beer and a bowl of soup.
Fifteen to twenty minutes later Jacobs left “Mary’s Bar”, after first receiving back his knife from the proprietress of that bar, and entered “Sophie’s Bar.” Immediately thereafter the argument between Jacobs and Stahl began again and there was more verbal abuse of Stahl by Jacobs. Miss Sophie, the proprietress of Sophie’s Bar told Jacobs she wanted no trouble and he would have to leave. He then left. There is some variation in the testimony in jregard to how soon Stahl left Sophie’s Bar after Jacobs had gone out.
Miss Sophie testified “He was eating, he was in the place at least fifteen minutes, maybe more, maybe longer.” Jacobs indicated that it was almost immediately, but when questioned by the trial court that “it wasn’t fifteen minutes as they say?”, Jacobs replied “I don’t know.” Canning indicated that Stahl was eating his soup and “was pretty hot,” and “shortly after that, I thought it was almost immediately, but it must have been some time involved, shortly after that he went outside.” Jacobs was
This is a preview of Jacobs v. State. About 50% of the opinion remains. Read the complete opinion in RecordCite.