Maryland case law › Smallwood v. State

Smallwood v. State

216 Md. 16 (1958) · Court of Appeals of Maryland
Court of Appeals of MarylandDisposition: AffirmedPrescott, J.✓ Good law
HoldingEugene Smallwood, a Negro man, was indicted in St.

Prescott, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Eugene Smallwood, a Negro man, was convicted of the crime of common law rape by a jury in the Circuit Court for Charles County, and sentenced by Judges Digges and Dorsey to life imprisonment. The appellant was indicted in St. Mary’s County, but, at his request, the trial was removed to Charles County. From this conviction and sentence, he has appealed.

The single question presented is, Was the evidence offered by the State sufficient to identify the defendant so as to sustain his conviction for the crime of rape? When this Court is called upon to review the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction in a criminal case tried before a jury, we do not inquire into and measure the weight of the evidence to ascertain whether the State has proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, but determine if there be any relevant evidence given to the jury which would properly sustain the conviction. Briley v. State, 212 Md. 445, 447 , 129 A. 2d 689 . The State offered, inter alia, the following testimony.

The prosecuting witness was a housewife, forty-seven years of age, who resided in a trailer in St. Mary’s County. She testified to these facts. On December 6, 1956, around 8:00 or 9:00 p.m., she left her trailer and started to walk down the road to Hood’s Market Bar, in order to purchase some 18 bread and milk. When she had “gone a pretty good distance down the road,” a car came up and stopped.

It contained two male Negro passengers, and one of them inquired if she wanted to ride. At that time, it was dark and she could not tell “who it was” so she said, “No, thanks just the same.” Another car went by and she observed a birthmark or scar on the left side of one of the men’s faces. One of them she judged to be between 25 and 30 years of age; the other older. She was again asked if she did not want to ride, and she replied, “No, if I did, I would not ride with a darn Negro.” The men proceeded on, and, after a short interval, she continued walking down the road.

She had not gone far when she was accosted by two men on foot, whom she took to be the same men who were in the automobile. The younger one told the older to “grab” her and said, “Slap your hand over her mouth, don’t let her scream.” The older of the two did this. This was the one who had the scar on his cheek, and she again noticed it. The younger man told the older to take her across the road.

She started to “holler again,” and “he hit a hand over (her) mouth again.” Then they both took hold of her and “dragged” her across the road. She “struggled” and “kicked the best she could.” When she kicked, the younger one “let (her) have it, right here.” When he hit her, she became dazed, and lost the power to resist them. During the struggle she

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