Ruffin v. StateRuffin v. State
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Appellant, Daniel Ruffin, was tried in the Criminal Court of Baltimore in a court trial by Judge Basil A. Thomas upon a two count indictment charging him with assault with intent to murder Hattie Louise Johnson (first count) and common law assault upon her (second count). He was found nоt guilty on the first count and guilty on the second count and was sentenced to five years under the jurisdiction of the Departmеnt of Correctional Services.
Appellant presents two questions on appeal, namely:
1) Was appellant denied a speedy trial ?
2) Did the lower court err in finding the appellant guilty of common law assault?
I
Appellant first contends that he was denied a speedy trial. Appellant was indicted on September 6, 1968. On November 6, 1968, appеllant’s counsel filed a motion for a speedy trial and trial was set for November 21, 1968. At that time the State moved for, and was granted, a postponement because the victim and prosecuting witness, Hattie Louise Johnson, was in the hospitаl. The trial was reset for December 17, 1968, and was again postponed at the State’s request because Miss Johnson wаs still in the hospital. The trial was reset for February 25, 1969, on
II
Appellant next contends that he should have been found not guilty of assault upon Hattie Louise Johnson, an innocent third party, as he was acting in self-defense at the time she was shоt.
The testimony as shown by the record reveals that on the evening of July 14, 1968, the victim, Hattie Louise Johnson, then age 13, accompanied by several1 young friends, among whom was a girl named Barnie, were at a playground at 770 W. Saratoga Street in Baltimore. Another girl named Denise entered the playground and an argument ensued between Denise and Barnie which rеsulted in a fight. After the fight had been broken up, Denise picked up a piece of glass and threw it at Barnie. Instead of hitting Bаrnie, the glass struck the appellant, Daniel Ruffin, on the arm. The appellant, age 18, then took off his coat and struck Denise in the eye with his fist. About this time Denise’s mother, accompanied by a cousin, Kenneth Branahan, also known as “Shorty”, аrrived at the playground. Shorty was accompanied by two
Appellant was found not guilty of assault with intent to murder but guilty of common law assault upon Hattie Louise Johnson, an innocent bystаnder. While we are not called upon to decide the question, we are of the opinion that the lower court was correct in finding the appellant not guilty of assault with intent to murder. It is apparent from the evidence that therе was no specific intent to inflict great bodily harm upon either Shorty or his companion, in that the firing of the revolver wаs directed some 10 to 12 feet to the right of them as they approached the appellant. The shots were fired as a warning not to come closer, after which the appellant fled.
The lower court apparently bаsed its finding of not guilty of assault with intent to murder upon a finding that appellant fired the shots in an effort to deter Shorty and his friend from аttacking him. However, the lower court further found that appellant had in his possession a dangerous and deadly weаpon which he had no right to pos
We are of the opinion that even though appellant purportedly was acting in self-defense, his аction in firing the weapon in a direction of the apartment building, where he had cause to believe that third partiеs were present, was so grossly negligent as to constitute criminal negligence. Criminal negligence is defined as
“a
wanton оr reckless disregard for human life, a degree of carelessness amounting to a culpable disregard of the rights and safety of others. . .” 65A
Corpus Juris Secundum
1075. See also
Craig v. State,
From the record thе trial court could have found that appellant acted in a grossly negligent manner and thus we cannot say that the trial court was clearly erroneous in finding appellant guilty of common law assault. Maryland Rule 1086.
Judgment affirmed.