Maryland case law › Kemp v. State

Kemp v. State

6 Md. App. 463 (1969) · Maryland Court of Special Appeals
Maryland Court of Special AppealsDisposition: Affirmed✓ Good law
HoldingRobert E.

Per Curiam. Robert E. Kemp, the appellant, was convicted of violation of Sunday Sales beverage laws in the Circuit Court for Garrett County. Judge Harold E. Naughton presiding with a jury. He was fined $200.

He contends that the trial judge abused his discretion in not granting a change of venue on the ground that Kemp could not receive a fair and impartial trial in Garrett County. Kemp filed a petition for change of venue which was denied by Judge Harold E. Naughton on August 5, 1968. Kemp’s petition did not give any reasons why the venue of his trial should be changed, but was a mere statement asking that the venue be changed because “he cannot receive a fair and impartial trial.” In his brief, he states that he was not able to obtain a fair and impartial trial because there was a homicide in the tavern which he owned; and that as a result of this homicide there was much hostility expressed by the residents of Garrett County about the way he operated his business. When the trial judge offered to permit the introduction of evidence to support the claim Kemp declined to offer any evidence. 465 Maryland Constitution, Article IV, Section 8 provides in part as follows: “. . . in all cases of Presentments or indictments for offences, which are or may be punishable by death, pending in any of the courts of law in this State having jurisdiction thereof upon suggestion in writing under oath of either of the parties to said proceedings that such party cannot have a fair and impartial trial in the court in which the same may be pending, the said court shall order and direct the record of proceedings in such suit or action, issue presentment, or indictment, to be transmitted to some other court having jurisdiction in such case for trial, but in all other cases of presentment or indictment, pending in any of the Courts of law in this State having jurisdiction thereof, in addition to the suggestion in writing of either of the parties to such presentment or indictment that such party cannot have a fair and imparital [sic] trial in the court in which the same may be pending, it shall be necessary for

This is a preview of Kemp v. State. About 50% of the opinion remains. Read the complete opinion in RecordCite.