Kain v. State

Per Curiam. The appellant was convicted of receiving stolen goods by a jury in the Criminal Court of Baltimore. The convictions were under eight separate indictments. After his motions for new trials were denied by the Supreme Bench, he is prosecuting these appeals as an indigent defendant.

His court-appointed attorney has displayed diligence in the performance of his duties; but the record against the defendant made in the lower court permits no chance for help to him by this appeal. The appellant’s first contention is that the trial court erred in its advisory instructions to the jury. There was no objection made to the instructions; hence the question is not properly before us. Rule 739 g; Brown v. State, 203 Md. 126 ; Canter v. State, 220 Md. 615 ; Briley v. State, 212 Md. 445 . ⁵¹³ He follows by attempting to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence.

At the conclusion of the State’s case, he moved for a directed verdict, which was denied. He then offered testimony in his own behalf, but failed to renew the motion at the conclusion of the taking of all of the evidence. In this procedure, he withdrew his motion for a directed verdict; consequently, this second question is, likewise, not properly before us for determination. Rule 738 a; Reynolds v. State, 219 Md. 319, 326 . 1 The only remaining question raised by the appellant