Johnson v. State

Prescott, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The appellant was convicted in the Criminal Court of Baltimore as a second offender against the narcotics laws. Asserting that he was indigent, he duly moved for a new trial before the Supreme Bench of Baltimore City and requested a free transcript of the testimony at his trial. Rule 30 (C-l) of the Supreme Bench requires one convicted in the Criminal Courts of Baltimore to file the original and three copies of the transcript of the testimony as a condition ⁴⁸³ precedent to the hearing of his motion for a new trial.

See Majority Opinion of Supreme Bench in Jackson v. State, Daily Record of March 12, 1957. The Supreme Bench refused to order the preparation of the transcript at public expense. As a result, appellant was denied a determination of his motion, and appealed to this Court, claiming that the refusal to furnish him the necessary transcript violated the equal protection and due process provisions of the Federal Constitution. The authorities are not in entire accord as to the origin of the practice of granting new trials.

Hilliard, New Trials, (2d Ed.), p. 2; 1 Okla. L. Rev. 252 , 253; State v. McCord, 8 Kan. 232, 241, 242 ; Orfield, Criminal Procedure Prom Arrest to Appeal, pp. 495, 496. In Baltimore City, unlike the procedure in the counties, the Supreme Bench hears and determines motions for new trials. The hearing of such motions in this manner is authorized by Section 33 of Article 4 of the Maryland Constitution which states that the Supreme Bench shall have jurisdiction to hear such motions arising either “on questions of fact” or “for misdirection upon any matters of Daw.” This constitutionally granted power to hear motions for new trials is unusual, if not unique; such authority usually emanating from legislative enactment or inveterate custom and usage.

This Court pointed out in Roth v. House of Refuge, 31 Md. 329 , that one of the purposes of the procedure contemplated by the constitution is to seek uniformity of decision and provide a form where there can be had the benefit of review in cases where an appeal will not lie. Often, where an appeal does lie the powers of review of the Supreme Bench in ruling upon the motion for a new trial are broader in scope than those of this Court. It may weigh the evidence in a criminal case even though the case was tried before a jury, and grant a new trial in its sound discretion. It also has the authority to weigh and consider newly discovered evidence.

The opportunity to seek a setting aside of his