Opinion ID: 2191641
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: and 18 Weight of the evidence

Text: In his seventeenth exception Kerpelman attacks the weight given to certain of the evidence, saying it could not possibly have been `clear and convincing'.... We perceive no error. In his eighteenth exception he suggests, As a matter of law an attorney cannot be found to have erred by `clear and convincing evidence' when the only evidence in the case is the testimonial evidence, as here, of the complaining witnesses in the two separate cases. We recently had occasion in Berkey v. Delia, 287 Md. 302, 413 A.2d 170 (1980), to discuss clear and convincing evidence under the rule enunciated relative to libel and slander actions in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964). We said: The fact that this is a one on one situation in no way precludes a determination by clear and convincing evidence as to which is speaking truthfully. That this is so is readily understood when we point out that in a criminal case an individual may be convicted upon the testimony of one witness who says that he saw the accused do the act constituting the crime notwithstanding the fact that the accused may say that he was not even present at the scene of the crime. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, required in criminal cases, is a higher standard than proof by clear and convincing evidence required in a defamation case such as this. [ Id. at 330.] We point out that in Caviness v. State, 244 Md. 575, 224 A.2d 417 (1966), Judge Marbury said for the Court: We have held that the testimony of one eye witness, if believed, is sufficient to convict, Turner v. State, 242 Md. 408, 219 A.2d 39; Hammond v. State, 241 Md. 733, 217 A.2d 569; and Wesbecker v. State, 240 Md. 41, 212 A.2d 737. The trial court in a nonjury case is entitled to believe the identifying witness rather than alibi witnesses who place appellant elsewhere. Campbell v. State, 231 Md. 21, 188 A.2d 282; Rule 886 a. [ Id. at 579.] This contention of Kerpelman is without merit.