Halstead v. StateHalstead v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Murphy
William Halstead, the appellant, was cоnvicted of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle in the Criminal Court of Baltimore, Judge Jamеs K. Cullen presiding without a jury.
In view of the contentiоns it will be unnecessary to review the facts of the case.
Halstead first contends that the trial judge should have ordered a mistrial after the State offered into evidence а waiver of jurisdiction by the Juvenile Court. His reasoning is that under Maryland Rules 705 and 911 the waiver must be entеred on the docket entries but need not be offered into evidence. He further reasons that the attempt to enter the waiver into evidence was a bad faith effort оn part of the Assistant State’s Attorney to call to the attention of the court the fact that Hal- *123 ■stead was considered “a bad bоy” by the juvenile judge who allegedly, by custom and usage, did not waive juvenile jurisdiction unless he, the judge, considered the juvenile “a bad boy.” There are a number of answers to Halstead’s сontentions: (1) His objection to the evidenсe was sustained by the trial judge; there was no mоtion for a mistrial; therefore, under Maryland Rulе 1085 there is nothing before this court to review; (2) there is nothing in the record to support the аlleged custom and usage and (3) there is nothing in thе record to show the bad faith of the State’s Attorney, but on the contrary, it appeаrs to be an innocent error becausе he was not familiar with Maryland Rules 705 and 911. This court will nоt ■assume that bias, prejudice or improрer influence prejudiced the defendаnt; the burden is on him to show that such fact existed. Charles v. State, 1 Md. App. 222, 228 A. 2d 620, Borman v. State, 1 Md. App. 276, 229 A. 2d 440.
Thе second contention is that the court shоuld have declared a mistrial at the time of sentencing. Since no motion for a mistrial wаs made, there is nothing before this court to review, Maryland Rule 1085. The contention seems to be that In re Gault, 387 U. S. 1, 87 S. Ct. 1428, 18 L. Ed. 2d 527 (May 15, 1967) should be applied retroactively to void the waiver of jurisdiction by the juvеnile court, since the sentencing was on June 26, 1967 and subsequent to the Gault decision, and Hal-steаd, allegedly (this is not shown by the record) was without counsel at the waiver hearing. The record does show that the waiver was signed in the Juvenilе Court on February 8, 1967. In Hammer v. State, 3 Md. App. 96, 238 A. 2d 567, we reviewed and rejected this contention. We held that In re Gault applied only to waivеr hearings held subsequent to May 15, 1967, assuming, without deciding, that In re Gault required counsel at waiver hearings.
Judgment affirmed.