Lotharp v. State, 189 A.2d 652 (Md. 1963). · Go Syfert
Search
Lotharp v. State, 189 A.2d 652 (Md. 1963). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
27 citation events (11 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Howard v. State (mdctspecapp, 2024-04-24)
Treatment trajectory · 1967 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1967 1996 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Howard v. State
Md. Ct. Spec. App. · 2024 · confidence medium
In Starr v. State, Judge Joseph F. Murphy explained, on behalf of a unanimous 9 CR § 4-201(e) states: Rifle. – “Rifle” means a weapon that is: (1) designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder; and (2) designed or redesigned, and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed metallic cartridge to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger. 14 Supreme Court, why the defendant failed to preserve for review on direct appeal his argument that a sawed-off shotgun described by the State’s witnes…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Howard v. State
Md. Ct. Spec. App. · 2024 · confidence medium
In Starr v. State, Judge Joseph F. Murphy explained, on behalf of a unanimous 9 CR § 4-201(e) states: Rifle. – “Rifle” means a weapon that is: (1) designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder; and (2) designed or redesigned, and made or remade to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed metallic cartridge to fire only a single projectile through a rifled bore for each single pull of the trigger. 14 Supreme Court, why the defendant failed to preserve for review on direct appeal his argument that a sawed-off shotgun described by the State’s witnes…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Rivera v. State
Md. Ct. Spec. App. · 2020 · confidence medium
Code (1951), Art. 27, § 700. 6 Lotharp v. State, 231 Md. 239, 240 (1963) (per curiam).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Rich
Md. · 2010 · confidence medium
In Starr v. State, 405 Md. 293 , 951 A.2d 87 (2008), this Court stated: It is well settled that “appellate review of the sufficiency of the evidence in a criminal case tried by a jury is predicated on the refusal of the trial court to grant a motion for judgment of acquittal.” Lotharp v. State, 231 Md. 239, 240 , 189 A.2d 652, 653 (1963).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Starr v. State
Md. · 2008 · confidence medium
It is well settled that “appellate review of the sufficiency of the evidence in a criminal case tried by a jury is predicated on the refusal of the trial court to grant a motion for judgment of acquittal.” Lotharp v. State, 231 Md. 239, 240 , 189 A.2d 652, 653 (1963).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Barnes v. State
Md. Ct. Spec. App. · 1976 · confidence medium
Lotharp v. State, 231 Md. 239, 240 (1963); Williams v. State, supra, at 455-456.
Lotharp
v.
State
[No. 254, September Term, 1962.].
Court of Appeals of Maryland.
Apr 3, 1963.
189 A.2d 652
Submitted on brief by John J. Mitchell for appellant., Submitted on brief by Thomas B. Finan, Attorney General, James P. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Arthur A. Marshall and Frank P. Flury, State’s Attorney and Deputy State’s Attorney, respectively, for Prince George’s County, for appellee.
Brune, Henderson, Prescott, Horney, Sybert.
Cited by 14 opinions  |  Published
Per Curiam.

The appellant, convicted of a homicide by a jury at a trial in which he was represented by counsel of his own choosing, contends on appeal that the failure of counsel to move for a judgment of acquittal should not preclude him from having this Court review the sufficiency of the evidence to convict him of murder in the second degree.

Since no motion for judgment of acquittal was made at any stage of the trial there can be no review of the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal. Under the provisions of § 5 of Art. XV of the Constitution of this State, Code (1957), Art. 27, § 593, and Maryland Rule 755, an appellate review of the sufficiency of the evidence in a criminal case tried by a jury is predicated on the refusal of the trial court to grant a motion for judgment of acquittal. Humphreys v. State, 227 Md. 115; Ledbetter v. State, 224 Md. 271. See also Stevens v. State, 230 Md. 47. The judgment must therefore be affirmed.

We may add that an examination of the record indicates that had the motion for judgment of acquittal been made pursuant to the rule, the result would be the same.

Judgment affirmed.