146 CONSTITUTION OP MARYLAND [Art. 15]

court, until the election of new judges This section construed in connection with
art 8, sec 1, of the Constitution of 1851 State v Manly, 1 Md 140

This section referred to in construing art 4, sec 11, and art 5, sec 2—see notes
thereto Groome v Gwinn, 43 Md 633 (concurring opinion)

See notes to art 4, sec 42, art 2, sec 11, art 6, sec 1, and art 7, sec 3

Sec 4 If at any election directed by this Constitution, any two or more
candidates shall have the highest and an equal number of votes, a new elec-
tion shall be ordered by the Governor, except in cases specially provided for
by this Constitution

Sec 5 In the trial of all criminal cases, the jury shall be the Judges of
Law, as well as of fact

Accused may waive right of trial by jury Rose v State Daily Record, Jan 31, 1940

In view of this section, any instructions given the jury are but advisory and in no
manner binding except as to questions as to what shall be considered evidence The
court cannot be required by counsel or jury to give instructions either on the law, or on
the legal effect of evidence Bloomer v State, 48 Md 538, Broll v State, 45 Md 359,
Wheeler v State, 42 Md 570, Esterline v State, 105 Md 636, Jules v State, 85 Md 313,
Ridgely v State, 75 Md 513, Goldman v State, 75 Md 623, Beard v State, 71 Md 279,
Baltimore, etc, Co v State, 63 Md 582

The court has the right to advise the jury in a criminal case, although it cannot be
required to do so If the instruction given, however, is erroneous and the jury has
followed it to the plain injury of the traverser, the case may be reversed on this ground
Cochran v State, 119 Md 552, Ridgeley v State, 75 Md 513, Beard v State,
71 Md 281

The jury has no power in criminal cases to pass on the constitutionality of a law,
hence that question may not be argued to the jury This section is merely declaratory
and does not alter the pre-existing law regulating the powers of the court and jury in
criminal cases Franklin v State, 12 Md 249 and 245, Sparf v United States, 156 U S
152 (dissenting opinion), Bell v State, 57 Md 120

Where a party elects to be tried by a court without a jury, the court is substi-
tuted for the jury, and has the same duties and functions in passing upon the guilt
of the accused League v State, 36 Md 264

The act of 1878, ch 415, sec 10, conferring jurisdiction upon justices of the peace
to try and commit to the house of correction vagrants and disorderly persons, is con-
stitutional State v Glenn, 54 Md 599

The court in criminal cases, as in civil cases, determines the admissibility of testi-
mony and the competency of witnesses Jules v State, 85 Md 313

The court may state to the jury the legal effect of evidence Bell v State, 57 Md 120

The legal effect of evidence is a question for the jury under this section World v
State, 50 Md 55

See art 21 of the Declaration of Rights, and notes to art 59, sec 4, An Code

In view of this section, motion of traverser's counsel to strike out evidence cannot
be entertained in criminal cases Court only determines admissibility of testimony
and competency of witnesses Rasin v State, 153 Md 435

In view of this section, legal sufficiency of testimony to sustain indictment may not
be submitted to trial court as question of law, admissibility of evidence is for court
Deibert v State, 150 Md 695

While in view of this section court cannot give binding instructions in criminal
cases, advisory instructions may be given, this practice long sanctioned in Maryland
Klein v State, 151 Md 489

No distinction under this section between motion in arrest of judgment and motion
to strike out verdict and judgment This section applied Willis v State, 153 Md 617

This section referred to in holding comment of court in criminal case prejudicial error
Newton v State, 147 Md 87

This section is of equal force and not in conflict with arts 2 and 5 of the Declaration
of Rights Price v State, 160 Md 672

Cited but not construed in dissenting opinion in Price v State, 159 Md 517

Cited but not construed in Thomas v Penna R Co, 162 Md 516, Vogel v State,
163 Md 272

Where state's attorney argued to jury the probative force of evidence, that body
being the proper one under this section, it was held that there was no appeal on
questions of correctness of arguments Davis v State, 168 Md 12

This section referred to in State v Coblentz, 169 Md 167

Question of sufficiency of corroboration of testimony of accomplice to sustain con-
viction for gaming is for jury, or court, to determine Folb v State, 169 Md 209

Since jurors, in criminal cases, are the judges of law as well as of fact, it is improper
for court to deny counsel privilege of stating the law to the jury Wilkerson v State,
171 Md 287

The province of the Court is to pass on admissibility of evidence, not proper to
strike out all evidence when part is admissible Kirschgessner v State, 174 Md 201