## Facts

- John G. Harrod was tried in the Circuit Court for Carroll County (bench trial) and convicted of two assaults and two counts of carrying a deadly weapon openly with intent to injure.
- The charges arose from a domestic confrontation involving Harrod, his wife Cheryl Harrod, their infant son James Christopher Harrod, and Cheryl’s friend Calvin Crigger.
- Cheryl testified that she invited Crigger over when she believed Harrod had left for work; Harrod emerged holding a hammer, swung it, and advanced toward Cheryl and Crigger, who fled.
- Cheryl testified Harrod threw the hammer over the infant’s port-a-crib in the living room and it struck the wall.
- Harrod then retrieved a hunting knife, threatened Cheryl, stuck the knife into a banister near her arm, and followed her outside near Crigger’s car in a menacing manner.
- The only witnesses were Harrod and Cheryl; the trial judge credited Cheryl’s account.
- The State treated one assault as against Cheryl and the other as against the infant based on the hammer’s proximity to the crib; the weapons counts were based on Harrod’s open use of the hammer and knife.
- Harrod received concurrent sentences: two years for each assault and one year for each weapons conviction.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support an assault conviction involving an infant who suffered no injury and was not aware of the conduct.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support two convictions for carrying a deadly weapon openly with intent to injure based on Harrod’s use of a hammer and a hunting knife.
3. Whether the sentencing court relied on an improper factor requiring resentencing.

## Decision

- Reversed the conviction for assault on the infant due to insufficient evidence.
- Affirmed both convictions for carrying a deadly weapon openly with intent to injure.
- Affirmed the sentence, finding no reversible sentencing error.
- Because the sentences were concurrent, the reversal did not change the effective term of incarceration.

## Legal Principles

- Maryland common-law assault includes two forms: (1) attempted-battery assault and (2) intent-to-frighten (apprehension) assault requiring reasonable apprehension of an immediate battery.
- Apprehension-type assault cannot be established if the alleged victim was unaware of the defendant’s conduct.
- Attempted-battery assault requires proof of a specific intent to batter the alleged victim and an overt act directed toward that battery; a risk created near a person, without proof the act was directed at that person, is insufficient.
- Transferred intent does not, by itself, sustain an assault conviction where the alleged victim experienced neither harm nor apprehension and there is no evidence of an attempted battery aimed at that victim.
- For carrying a deadly weapon openly with intent to injure, intent may be inferred from the defendant’s threatening conduct and use of the object as a weapon in the confrontation.
- A sentence within statutory limits will be affirmed absent a showing that the court relied on an impermissible consideration.

## Conclusion

The court set aside the infant-assault conviction because the evidence did not show either victim apprehension or an attempted battery directed at the child, limiting the use of transferred intent in assault prosecutions, while upholding the weapons convictions and the concurrent sentences based on evidence of open, menacing use of the hammer and knife and the absence of improper sentencing factors.


Harrod v. State, 65 Md. App. 128, 499 A.2d 959 (Ct. Spec. App. 1985)