Ferrier v. State
| Decision Date | 18 December 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 111,111 |
| Citation | 248 A.2d 501,5 Md.App. 553 |
| Parties | Richard L. FERRIER v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Harper M. Smith, Rockville, for appellant.
Henry J. Frankel, Asst. Atty. Gen., with whom were Francis B. Burch, Atty. Gen., William A. Linthicum, Jr. and Barry Helfand, State's Atty. and Asst. State's Atty. for Montgomery County, on the brief, for appellee.
Before MURPHY, C. J., and ANDERSON, MORTON, ORTH, THOMPSON, JJ.
Richard L. Ferrier, the appellant, appeals from a conviction for assault and battery in a jury trial in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Judge John P. Moore presiding. Ferrier was sentenced to a term of eighteen months in the Maryland House of Correction. On July 18, 1967, about six months after his sentencing, the appellant filed a petition under the Uniform Post Conviction Procedure Act alleging, among other things, that he had been denied the right to note a timely appeal of his conviction. A hearing was held before Judge Joseph M. Mathias on December 14, 1967, and on the 26th of December, 1967 pursuant to the consent of counsel for both the appellant and the state, Judge Mathias granted the appellant a delayed appeal after having found that his attempt to appeal had been delayed by circumstances beyond his control. Ferrier's sole contention on appeal is that the lower court committed reversible error by admitting into evidence copies of the hospital records of the victim which contained recitals not pathologically germane and irrelevant to the proper diagnosis or treatment of the victim's condition.
There was evidence that on January 2, 1967 about 3:30 in the morning Raymond E. Branch was at his home in Silver Springs, Maryland with two friends who shared the residence with him. They had just returned from a New Year's party and Branch was having a drink with Dallas Keith while the third man, Don Turner, was asleep in a chair. At this time the Ferrier brothers, Richard, Clyde, and George, together with two other men arrived, Branch thought, for the purpose of returning clothing that they had borrowed earlier in the evening from Don Turner. The victim testified that when he answered the front door the appellant his him in the face and that then, together with the two other Ferrier brothers, severely beat him. The next morning about 10 or 11 Branch went to the hospital where he was treated for his injuries and was discharged about 4 P. M. the same day.
Branch had known the Ferrier brothers for approximately eight months and was more or less friendly with them. Branch, however, had had a fight a week earlier with Clyde Ferrior over a girl and at the New Year's party the appellant had made reference to Branch's fight with Clyde. Dallas Keith corroborated Branch's testimony. The appellant, claiming self defense, testified that when they came to the front door the victim opened the door and began hitting them with a rifle butt, and that the appellant and his brother, George, had wrestled the gun from him. His testimony was supported by his brothers'.
The medical doctor who first saw Branch at the hospital produced the original hospital records together with photostatic copies thereof. He testified that the records and the copies were made in the regular course of business of the hospital and further that it was the regular course of business of the hospital to make such records and copies. The court examined the records and after deleting some pages admitted the remainder of the copies into evidence.
To support his argument as to the admission of the hospital records the appellant first contends that the copies were not admissible under Md.Code, Art. 35, § 59. The express language of the statute provides for the admission of photostatic or photographic copies if 'photostated or photographed in the regular course of business in good faith without intent to defraud.' See State, Use of Shipley v. Walker, 230 Md. 133, 186 A.2d 472. There is no merit in the contention.
The appellant further contends that the medical records were not properly authenticated by their custodian. He cites Simco Sales, Service of Maryland v. Schweigman, 237 Md. 180, 189, 205 A.2d 245, 249 which approved the admission of records when the records were produced by the custodian, who was not the physician. In the present case the records...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Davis
...see pp. 56-57, 291 P.2d 155), are distinguishable. In none was there the issue of admissibility of double hearsay. In Ferrier v. State, 5 Md.App. 553, 248 A.2d 501 (1968), the defendant was convicted of assault and battery. He argued on appeal that the trial court erred in admitting into ev......
-
Rasnick v. State
...we think this portion of the report was merely cumulative hearsay and its admission, if erroneous, was harmless. Ferrier v. State, 5 Md.App. 553, 248 A.2d 501, and cases cited therein. Although the eyewitness did not see the kicking, we think his testimony was sufficient to raise an inferen......
-
Perez v. State
...faith and without intent to defraud.' Thus, the statute expressly authorizes the use of the microfilmed record. See also, Ferrier v. State, 5 Md.App. 553, 248 A.2d 501. Nor do we find any error, as argued by appellant, in admitting 'into evidence anything less than the entire originalhospit......