Thomas v. State, 413 Md. 247

Summary

The Court of Appeals of Maryland affirmed Robert L. Thomas's convictions for bribery and conspiracy to commit bribery arising from an alleged bid-rigging scheme involving a county security contract. The court held that lack of actual authority to perform the requested act is not a defense to bribery when the act is reasonably related to the public employee's official duties. It also held that testimony concerning a witness's belief in Thomas's authority was relevant to the alleged conspiracy to commit theft by deception and was properly admitted.

Holdings

1. A public employee cannot claim lack of actual authority as a defense to bribery when the act that was the object of the bribe was reasonably related to the employee's official duties. The challenged jury instruction therefore correctly stated Maryland law.
2. Evans's testimony that he believed Thomas had authority to influence or award the contract was relevant and admissible on the charge of conspiracy to commit theft by deception because it helped show the false impression Thomas created and the skillfulness of his deception. The testimony was not admitted to prove that Thomas actually possessed authority.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a public employee's lack of actual authority, power, or ability to perform the act for which a bribe was solicited is a defense to bribery when the act was reasonably related to the employee's official duties.
2. Whether testimony concerning a witness's belief that Thomas had authority to influence or award the contract was relevant and admissible in connection with the charge of conspiracy to commit theft by deception.

Disposition

affirmed