II. Background on Criminal Justice System Flashcards
What is the rule in Owens v. State?
RULE: cannot convict based on circumstantial evidence if any reasonable hypothesis of innocence exists
FACTS: The police officer responded to a complaint of a suspicious car and found defendant
sleeping in his car in a driveway with the motor running. The police awoke defendant, who was confused and disoriented. Defendant had an open can of beer between his legs and empty cans in the car. Defendant smelled of alcohol and his driver’s license revealed an alcohol restriction. Defendant was eventually convicted of driving while intoxicated. On review, defendant argued that there was insufficient evidence to convict him because the State of Maryland failed to establish whether defendant was coming or going from the driveway.
ISSUE: Is circumstantial evidence alone legally sufficient to prove guilt at trial?
HOLDING: Circumstantial evidence was sufficient to prove guilty here
REASONING: the fact that defendant was in a car with beer cans indicated that he was leaving the driveway. The police would not have been contacted if defendant had just entered the car in the driveway. it was more likely that he had been observed driving in the neighborhood
Whats the rule in State v. Ragland?
RULE: (Jury Nullification) The jury’s right to acquit despite overwhelming evidence of guilt is not a right of the accused but rather a power of the jury.
FACTS: Defendant was charged with various offenses at the conclusion of trial, the judge instructed the jury that it “must” convict of the possession charge if it found that the Defendant possessed a weapon during the commission of the robbery. The jury convicted the Defendant and this appeal ensued on the issue of whether the judge’s use of the word “must” deprived the Defendant of the jury’s nullification power
ISSUE: Did the judge need to instruct the jury of its nullification power
HOLDING: No, the judge does not need to instruct jurors in a way that lets them know of jury
nullification
REASONING: jury nullification is not desirable.
The legislature has defined criminal conduct, and while twelve people picked as jurors may see a law as unjust or a particular application of a law as unfair, they are not in the best position to revise the law. The legislature is elected to perform such a duty.
