Beasley v. State
Decision Date | 01 May 1974 |
Docket Number | No. 238,238 |
Parties | William BEASLEY v. STATE of Maryland. |
Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
P. Paul Cocoros, assigned Public Defender, and Dennis Henderson, Asst. Public Defender, Baltimore, for appellant.
Clarence W. Sharp, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Francis B. Burch, Atty. Gen., Baltimore, on the brief), for appellee.
Argued before MURPHY, C. J., and SINGLEY, SMITH, DIGGES, LEVINE and ELDRIDGE, JJ.
Appellant, William Beasley (Beasley), was convicted of armed robbery and carrying a concealed deadly weapon by a jury in the Criminal Court of Baltimore. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed in an unreported opinion. We granted certiorari in order that we might consider whether the trial judge prejudicially restricted the right of Beasley to cross-examine a State's witness. Since we conclude that he did, we shall reverse.
The facts of the case were succinctly stated in the opinion of the Court of Special Appeals:
'The victim, Charles Colbert, testified that on July 7, 1972, at 1 a. m., he picked up a girl and three men who were hitchhiking in the City of Baltimore. According to Colbert: 'When I get to 25th and Calvert I say He stated that 'the young lady tore my pants pocket and the money ($250) disappeared out of my pocket.' He identified appellant as the man who wielded the hammer.
The State called Julie Grabstein as a rebuttal witness under a grant of immunity from prosecution. Her attorney was present in court. He was initially assigned by the Public Defender to represent Beasley. Thirteen days after that assignment, however, he was replaced because of a conflict of interest. Miss Grabstein's story differed somewhat from that of Colbert. She claimed that she met the victim in a bar on Baltimore Street, that they 'made an arrangement and (she) took him up to (her) apartment building,' and that they entered an unoccupied apartment located on the same floor as her apartment. She thought this was around midnight. As to what then took place, she testified.
She identified Beasley as one of the three men. She further said:
Miss Grabstein acknowledged that she left the apartment building with the victim's three assailants. She said she drove around with them in what she claimed was Beasley's car.
The record, relative to cross-examination of Miss Grabstein, includes the following:
'
'MR. COCOROS (counsel for the defendant): Your Honor, she refuses to answer the question.
'MR. EAGAN (Assistant State's Attorney): Your Honor, may we approach the Bench?
'(Whereupon the conference at the Bench was concluded.)'
The Court of Special Appeals said, in its opinion:
The facts in Long v. State, 7 Md.App. 256, 254 A.2d 707 (1969), differed substantially from those in this case. Judge Thompson there said for the Court of Special Appeals:
Id. at 261-262, 254 A.2d at 709.
The allowance or disallowance of certain questions on cross-examination normally is left to the sound discretion of the trial judge. Shields v. State, 257 Md. 384, 392, 263 A.2d 565 (1970); Ridgeway, Inc. v. Seidman, 243 Md. 358, 364, 221 A.2d 393 (1966); Shupe v. State, 238 Md. 307, 310, 208 A.2d 590 (1965), and cases there cited. Speaking on the subject of cross-examination in Ridgeway, Chief Judge Prescott said for the Court:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Jones v. State
...Poole v. State, 295 Md. 167, 189-90, 453 A.2d 1218 (1983); Vitek v. State, 295 Md. 35, 40, 453 A.2d 514 (1982); Beasley v. State, 271 Md. 521, 527, 318 A.2d 501 (1974); Shupe v. State, 238 Md. 307, 310-11, 208 A.2d 590 (1965). In so concluding, we note that the inquiry in question was exclu......
-
Wildermuth v. State, s. 2
...the defendants from the witnesses.10 Under some circumstances, the right may be forfeited or waived. See, e.g., Beasley v. State, 271 Md. 521, 533, 318 A.2d 501, 507-508 (1974); United States v. Balano, 618 F.2d 624, 630 (10th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 840, 101 S.Ct. 118, 66 L.Ed.2d......
-
Poole v. State
...is left to the sound discretion of the trial judge," and will not be reversed except for abuse of that discretion. Beasley v. State, 271 Md. 521, 527, 318 A.2d 501, 504 (1974). b. Next, the appellant claims error when the trial court overruled his objection to certain questions asked of Off......
-
State v. Hassberger
...a legitimate interest in balancing the safety of a witness against the need for full and complete cross-examination. Beasley v. State, 271 Md. 521, 318 A.2d 501, 508 (1974). Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.220(h) qualifies the above-cited rule, (h) Protective Orders. Upon a showing of cause, the court may ......