Davis v. State
| Decision Date | 18 February 1948 |
| Docket Number | 75. |
| Citation | 57 A.2d 289,189 Md. 640 |
| Parties | DAVIS v. STATE. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Washington County; William A. Huster Chief Judge, and Joseph D. Mish and George Henderson, Judges.
Bruce Davis was convicted of murder in the first degree, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Paul B. Mules, of Baltimore, and E. Stuart Bushong of Hagerstown, for appellant.
J Edgar Harvey, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Hall Hammond, Atty. Gen., and W.
W. Dawson, State's Atty., of Rockville, on the brief), for appellee.
Before MARBURY, C.J., and DELAPLAINE, COLLINS GRASON, HENDERSON, and MARKELL, JJ.
Appellant appeals from a judgment of the Circuit Court for Washington County, sentencing him to life imprisonment, after a verdict of a jury finding him guilty of murder in the first degree, without capital punishment. He raises only one question, which he states as the admission in evidence over his objection of a sample of his blood. He claims that the circumstances under which it was taken from his body compelled him to testify against himself in violation of the Declaration of Rights.
It is necessary, in order to understand the question propounded, to relate certain facts in relation to the charge against him. On December 10, 1946, a Mrs. McAllister was found dead in a second story room of a dwelling house in Montgomery County, owned by her family, and used occasionally by her. She had been beaten to death with a hammer found in the room. Blood was found on her garments, on the floor, and on objects in the room.
The appellant was suspected because of his open and notorious friendship with the victim, and because he had been frequently seen driving her automobile. It was discovered that he had driven this car to his home in Tennessee, and he was arrested there on December 19th on the charge of stealing it. When arrested, he was in a hospital, under treatment for iodine poisoning, as a result of his having swallowed a large quantity of this drug. He was transported by two Montgomery County policemen in an automobile to Rockville, Maryland, and there placed in jail. On his arrival he was treated by the county medical officer, and given a laxative. This was on the evening of December 22nd.
On the following day another physician visited him, for the purpose, as the physician testified, of getting some of his blood at the request of the State's Attorney. This physician said the Captain of Detectives of Montgomery County, who accompanied him on the visit, asked appellant if he would mind if he took his blood. Appellant held out his arm, and the physician took some of his blood, and turned the specimen over to the officer. The physician also testified that he put a stethoscope on appellant's heart, took his pulse, but did not tell him why he wanted the blood, except that he said it was at the request of the State's Attorney.
The Captain of Detectives corroborated this testimony, and said, in addition, that the doctor asked appellant if the medicine the county physician had given him the previous night had worked. He also stated that when he asked appellant if he had any objection to their getting a sample of his blood, appellant said no, and held up his arm to the physician. He said appellant was not informed of the purpose for which they wanted the blood specimen.
Appellant testified that the second doctor asked him if he knew the iodine he had taken might affect his eyes or his kidneys. The doctor then said they would like to take a blood test and a urine specimen. Appellant said he thought they were doing it for his health. He said that he never got a bottle for the purpose of giving the urine specimen, although he asked the jailer for one several times.
The blood specimen was admitted in evidence over appellant's objection, and testimony was offered that it belonged to Group 'A'. The blood from the slip and the brassiere found on the victim, and that from the blanket with which she was covered when found, and that on the hammer, belonged to Group 'O'. Blood found on the lining of the left sleeve of appellant's coat was also found to belong to Group 'O'. It was the contention of the State the this last blood might have come from the victim. To offset this, appellant offered testimony to show that while wearing the coat he had been in a fight with two men. He claimed that the blood in this sleeve must have come from one of these two men, who, he said, were bleeding during the fight. The evidence showed that one of these men had Group 'A' blood, and the other Group 'O'. The admission of appellant's blood specimen, therefore, tended to prove that the blood in appellant's coat did not come from his own body, but that it could have come either from the victim or from one of the two men with whom the appellant had fought.
We have recently had occasion to approve the admission of blood tests as a link in the chain of evidence against an accused in a rape case. Shanks v. State, 185 Md. 437, 45 A.2d 85, 163 A.L.R. 931, annotated at page 939. In that case, in which the general subject was discussed at length, blood was taken from the coat of an accused, and evidence as to it was produced through witnesses other than accused. No objection is made here to the evidence and test of the blood taken from appellant's coat. The appellant raises a different question, which is whether testimony about his blood, taken from his body, by a subterfuge, is not inadmissible as a violation of his constitutional immunity from giving evidence against himself.
The State asserts that as no force or compulsion was used to get appellant's blood, and as nothing was said to mislead him, the giving of the sample by appellant was entirely voluntary. This contention ignores the fact that deception does not have to be by word of mouth. Circumstances may be used to indicate a purpose which is not the real purpose. The appellant may have well thought, as he claims, that the doctor wanted his blood for the purpose of determining the effect of the iodine poisoning, and not for the real reason for which it was taken. Certainly he was not told the real reason. We think we should treat the question as if the evidence was not obtained...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Gray
... ... Government of the Canal Zone, 167 F.2d 938 (5th Cir. 1948); State v. Thomas, 78 Ariz. 52, 275 P.2d 408 (1954), aff'd, 356 U.S. 390, 78 S.Ct. 885, 2 L.Ed.2d 863 (1958), rev'd on other grounds in State v. Pina, 94 Ariz. 243, 383 P.2d 167 (1963); Davis v. State, 189 Md. 640, 57 A.2d 289 (1948); see Dockery v. State, 269 Ala. 564, 114 So.2d 394 (1959); Commonwealth v. Statti, 166 Pa.Super. 577, 73 A.2d 688 ... Page 914 ... (1950); cf. People v. Mummert, 57 Cal.App.2d 849, 135 P.2d 665 (1943), rev'd on other grounds in People v. Collins, 54 ... ...
-
Williams v. State
... ... State, 183 Md. 603, 39 A.2d 820, 171 A.L.R. 1138. But that case, if correctly decided, has been confined to its particular ... facts and has no application to tests or observations made by third persons out of court. See Shanks v. State, 185 Md. 437, 444, 45 A.2d 85, 163 A.L.R. 931; Davis v. State, 189 Md. 640, 644, 57 A.2d 289, and 17 Md.L.Rev. 193, 210. See also Journigan v. State, 223 Md. 405, 412, 164 A.2d 896, 83 A.L.R.2d 1026. Courts in other jurisdictions have reached the same conclusion, in cases involving testimony as to needle marks. See People v. Eberhard, 114 ... ...
-
Com. v. Mussoline
... ... Viewing this evidence in a light most favorable to the Commonwealth, it appears that in 1960 Mussoline entered the Hazleton State General Hospital for surgery, pursuant to which his blood was then typed as Landsteiner A, Moss 2, Rh positive. The blood spots found near the scene ... between samples found in defendant's car and prosecutrix's own blood was used to substantiate the victim's eyewitness identification, and Davis v. State, 189 Md. 640, 57 A.2d 289 (1948), a murder prosecution wherein the blood-type evidence was used in conjunction with the fact that defendant ... ...
- Holt v. Kolker