Williams v. State
This text of 366 A.2d 399 (Williams v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Special Appeals of Maryland primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinions
delivered the opinion of the Court. Moylan, J., concurs and filed a concurring opinion at page 207 infra.
The appellant, Buck Williams, was convicted by a Baltimore City jury, presided over by Judge Sol Friedman, of first-degree murder and of carrying a deadly weapon with intent to injure. Upon this appeal, he raises the single contention that the jury instructions erroneously allocated to him the burden of proof on the issue of self-defense in [207]*207contravention of Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U. S. 684, 95 S. Ct. 1881, 44 L.Ed.2d 508 (1975). The appellant acknowledges that he made no objection to the instruction as given as is required by Maryland Rule 756 f. Notwithstanding the fact that under Rule 756 g there is nothing preserved for appellate review as a matter of right, he asks us in the exercise of our discretion to “take cognizance of and correct any plain error in the instructions, material to the rights of the accused even though such error was not objected to as provided by section f of this Rule.” Without any reasons needing to be assigned, we, in the exercise of our unfettered discretion, decline to do so. This is dispositive of the present appeal.
Judgments affirmed; costs to be paid by appellant.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
366 A.2d 399, 34 Md. App. 206, 1976 Md. App. LEXIS 323, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-state-mdctspecapp-1976.