Opinion ID: 1973015
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: Under Rule 886 when an action has been tried by the lower court without a jury, this Court will review the case upon both the law and the evidence, but the judgment of the lower court will not be set aside on the evidence unless clearly erroneous and due regard will be given to the opportunity of the lower court to judge the credibility of the witnesses. In Pope v. State, 284 Md. 309, 396 A.2d 1054 (1979), Judge Orth said for the Court on the matter of appellate review in a criminal case: The appellate court's function is merely to decide whether there was sufficient evidence, or proper inferences from the evidence, from which the trier of fact could properly draw the conclusion of the [accused's] guilt, beyond a reasonable doubt. Brooks v. State, 277 Md. 155, 161-162, 353 A.2d 217 (1976), and cases therein cited. The trial court, as the trier of facts, is not only the judge of the witness's credibility, but is also the judge of the weight to be attached to the evidence. [ Id. at 327.] This standard is entirely consistent with that enunciated by the Supreme Court later in the same year in Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 318-19, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). There was ample evidence to sustain each and every finding of fact made by the trial judge. He was correct in his statement that each specific incident or detail, in itself, cannot be considered separately. All incidents or details, considered cumulatively, are what matter. In each instance here we have a developer aggrieved by the sewer moratorium who sought help from Spector who had not represented him previously. In each instance the record discloses virtually nothing done by Spector on behalf of his clients. Money was paid to Spector in each instance promptly after the developers represented by him were successful before the Board of Review. In each instance the fee was then very promptly shared by Spector with Wyatt and he in turn shared the fee with Noren. The record shows no work of a legal nature done by them on behalf of the clients. The developers had been unsuccessful until they sought help from Spector. There is no rational explanation for the series of events which here took place other than that the sums in question were paid by Spector and Wyatt to Noren to influence him in the performance of his duties as an Assistant Attorney General of Maryland and that the money was received by Noren with the same intent. All of the circumstances here clearly permit the inference of a corrupt intent. We find sufficient evidence to sustain the convictions.