Summary
In Swann v. State, 7 Md. App. 309, we observed that there was no valid distinction between court-appointed counsel and privately retained counsel in determining the question whether an accused is bound by counsel's statements, objections, or failure to object at trial.
Summary of this case from Rhodes v. WardenOpinion
No. 454, September Term, 1968.
Decided June 25, 1969.
JURISDICTION — Power Of Court To Try Accused Not Impaired By Fact That He Was Brought Within Court's Jurisdiction By Means Of "Forcible Abduction." The power of a court to try a person for crime is not impaired by the fact that he has been brought within the court's jurisdiction by reason of a "forcible abduction." p. 311
APPEAL — Waiver Of Allegations Not Raised Below. The matter of the competency of appellant's trial counsel was not properly before the Court of Special Appeals for review, where the issue had not been tried and decided below. p. 311
Where appellant did not object at his trial for assault to being cross-examined as to a prior unrelated housebreaking conviction, the issue was not properly before the Court of Special Appeals for review. Rule 1085. p. 312
WITNESSES — Accused May Be Cross-Examined As To Prior Convictions. By taking the stand at his trial for assault, appellant placed his character into issue and could thus be questioned by the State's attorney as to a previous conviction insofar as it pertained to his credibility as a witness. p. 312
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Prince George's County (POWERS, J.).
John Cordell Swann was convicted in a jury trial of assault with intent to murder, and, from the judgment entered thereon, he appeals.
Affirmed.
The cause was argued before MURPHY, C.J., and ANDERSON, MORTON, ORTH, and THOMPSON, JJ.
Hugh L. Reilly for appellant.
Thomas N. Biddison, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, with whom were Francis B. Burch, Attorney General, Arthur A. Marshall, Jr., State's Attorney for Prince George's County and Joseph J. Bonner, Assistant State's Attorney for Prince George's County, on the brief, for appellee.
John Cordell Swann, the appellant, was convicted of assault with intent to murder in a jury trial in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County, Judge Ralph W. Powers presiding. Swann, who was sentenced to a term of fifteen years, now asks:
"1. Should the defendant's conviction be vitiated because of lack of proper jurisdiction over the defendant;
"2. Should indigent accused, represented by assigned counsel, be bound by counsel's statements, objections, or failures to object at trial;
"3. Should the Court have permitted the defendant to be cross-examined by the prosecutor as to a prior unrelated housebreaking conviction."
Appellant's counsel abandoned a fourth question at oral argument.
On July 6, 1968 at about 3:45 A.M., Pauline Hawkins stepped out of the rear of Jiffy Carry Out Shop, where she was employed, to dispose of some dirty linen when she was confronted by Swann who shot her. About a month before the shooting, Swann, posing as a janitor, had gained entrance into Hawkins' apartment and raped her. On cross-examination, she testified that she felt that Swann had shot her to keep her from testifying in the rape case.
— 1 — Jurisdiction
Swann was apprehended in the District of Columbia by District policemen and returned to Prince George's County by Prince George's detectives. Swann contends that since he was improperly returned to Maryland, the Circuit Court for Prince George's County lacked the necessary jurisdiction to try him.
The Supreme Court of the United States held in Frisbie v. Collins, 342 U.S. 519, 522, 72 S.Ct. 509, 511, 96 L.Ed. 541, reh. denied 343 U.S. 937, 72 S.Ct. 768, 96 L.Ed. 1344 that:
"This Court has never departed from the rule announced in Ker v. Illinois, 119 U.S. 436, 444, 7 S.Ct. 225, 229, 30 L.Ed. 421, that the power of a court to try a person for crime is not impaired by the fact that he had been brought within the court's jurisdiction by reason of a `forcible abduction'."
The Court of Appeals of Maryland has followed Ker v. Illinois, supra and Frisbie v. Collins, supra, see McGuire v. State, 200 Md. 601, 92 A.2d 582, cert. den. 344 U.S. 928, 73 S.Ct. 497, 97 L.Ed. 714, Bell v. Warden, 215 Md. 614, 137 A.2d 118, and Austin v. Director, 237 Md. 314, 206 A.2d 145 and cases cited therein.
— 2 — Counsel
This question is posed apparently to support question no. 3. We see no valid distinction between paid and court appointed counsel; and we are referred to no case so holding. As to the importance of state procedural requirements on raising constitutional questions see Bork v. State, 4 Md. App. 404, 243 A.2d 647, cert. den. Court of Appeals of Maryland, January 14, 1969 and by the Supreme Court of United States, June 2, 1969. "The matter of competency of trial counsel was not tried and decided below and is not properly before us for review," Franklin v. State, 6 Md. App. 572, 580, 252 A.2d 487.
— 3 — Prior Conviction
When Swann took the stand and testified, he was cross-examined by the State's Attorney as to a prior conviction for housebreaking. There was no objection below and the issue is not properly before this Court under Md. Rule 1085; nonetheless, the question may be easily answered. By taking the stand, Swann placed his character into issue and could thus be questioned by the State's Attorney as to his previous criminal conviction insofar as it pertained to his credibility as a witness. Minor v. State, 6 Md. App. 82, 88, 250 A.2d 113.
Judgment affirmed.