Sadler v. State

Per Curiam. The Appellants, Weldon Anthony Sadler and Clifford Taylor Sadler, Jr., were indicted under identical four-count indict ³⁸⁵ ments for (1) statutory rape, (2) rape, (3) assault with intent to rape, and (4) assault. They were found guilty in a non-jury trial in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County of statutory rape and rape. Before sentences were imposed, their motions to dismiss, based on the decision in Schowgurow v. State, 240 Md. 121 , were granted and they were thereafter re-indicted on the same charges.

The cases were removed to Carroll County and on May 11, 1966, in a non-jury trial, they were each found guilty on the third count, assault with intent to rape, and not guilty on the other counts. Motions for a new trial were overruled and they were sentenced to ten years in the Maryland Penitentiary. The Appellants contend: 1. The lower court erred in overruling their pleas of double jeopardy. 2.

Their motions for judgment of acquittal should have been granted because there was no legally sufficient evidence to show any intent to rape or that any force was used or that an assault was committed. The record indicates that about 9:30 p.m. on the evening of November 25, 1964, the prosecuting witness, a twelve year old Negro girl, was forced into an automobile at the point of a knife and threatened with the loss of her life if she refused. The car was occupied by the Appellants, and three other white individuals. They drove to the vicinity of Pimlico Road in Baltimore County and while en route the prosecuting witness was blindfolded with her scarf and forced to disrobe.

According to the testimony of the prosecuting witness, when they arrived in Baltimore County and stopped the car, one of the individuals had intercourse with her in the car while the other four were outside. Thereafter, the other individuals got into the car with her, one at a time, while the others were on the outside and at least one of them forced her to commit a “perverted act.” After this, according to the young girl, they heard a woman “hollering” in the distance, whereupon they all got into the car and “drove up a little ways to a fence,” stopped the car and got out. At this time, one of the individuals was threatening to kill her and another was helping her to the fence, “so I could run.” At this point a police siren was heard and everyone started to ³⁸⁶ run. She ran to a nearby house and asked the occupants to call the police.

The owner of the house testified that the prosecuting witness knocked on his door shortly before midnight and he immediately called the police. Branson, who was one of the individuals involved in the events of that night, testified that he saw Clifford Sadler in the car “on top of the girl * * and that he saw Weldon Sadler get into the car with the girl while the others stood outside. The prosecuting witness was examined by a medical doctor at approximately 3:00 a.m. on November 26, 1964. The doctor testified that he could not find anything suggesting trauma or violence on her, but that there was. a laceration of the hymen —without evidence of recent violation.

A representative of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, who had analysed the clothing worn by the Appellants on the night of November 25, 1964, testified that Weldon Sadler’s T-shirt contained seminal stain; his shorts and trousers contained seminal stain and sperm cells; that he also found seminal stains on Clifford Sadler’s T-shirt and shorts. Another representative of the Federal Bureau of Investigation testified that he examined the clothing of Weldon Sadler and found a negroid pubic hair and head hair on the trousers worn by Weldon Sadler on the evening in question, and a negroid head hair on the shorts, shirt and jacket he was wearing that evening. I. The Appellants contend that in view of their having been found guilty at their first trial of statutory rape and rape, they were automatically found not guilty on the charges of assault with intent to rape and assault since the court made no specific findings on these latter charges. This being so, they argue that their pleas of double jeopardy should have been granted at the second trial, since they had already been tried and found not guilty of these