Fowler v. State
| Decision Date | 19 June 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 393,393 |
| Parties | Jake Glover FOWLER v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
John D. Hackett, Baltimore, for appellant.
Thomas N. Biddison, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., with whom were Francis B. Burch, Atty. Gen., Charles E. Moylan, Jr., State's Atty. for Baltimore City and Barry S. Frame, Asst. State's Atty. for Baltimore City, on the brief, Baltimore, for appellee.
Submitted the cause before MURPHY, C. J., and ANDERSON, MORTON, ORTH and THOMPSON, JJ.
Appellant was found guilty by a jury in the Criminal Court of Baltimore under two separate indictments charging assault upon Jmaes Williard on February 24, 1968. Sentenced by the court to two concurrent five-year terms under the jurisdiction of the Department of Correction, he contends on this appeal that the court erred when it instructed the jury that it could consider his past criminal record in determining his guilt of the offenses charged.
There was evidence adduced at the trial showing that appellant and Willard engaged in an altercation on February 24, 1968, during which appellant struck Williard twice with an iron pipe. Appellant testified on his own behalf and admitted that the struck Willard. He claimed, however, that he was defending himself when he struck Williard. On cross-examination, appellant admitted to an extensive past criminal record.
In its advisory instructions to the jury, the court stated:
'You are permitted to draw from the facts you find to be proved such reasonable inferences as seem justified in the light of your own experience, and in that regard you may consider the past record of the Defendant, but only as it applies to the evidence in this case as to his guilt or innocence.'
At the conclusion of the court's charge, appellant's counsel, out of the presence of the jury, stated:
'In your instruction I think there should be an instruction to the Jury not to consider the criminal record in determining * * *.'
The court responded as follows:
It is elementary that in a criminal case, where the defendant is a witness in his own behalf, he thereby puts his character in issue and may be asked on cross-examination if he has been convicted of a crime. Huber v. State, 2 Md.App. 245, 234 A.2d 264. Such evidence of prior conviction is admissible only for the purposes of impeachment and not to prove a fact in issue unless relevant to that issue and not collateral thereto. Johnson v. State, 4 Md.App. 648, 244 A.2d 632. In other words, proof which shows or tends to show that the accused is guilty of the commission of the crimes and offenses, even though of the same nature as the one charged, is incompetent and inadmissible for the purpose of showing commission of the particular crime charged. Wethington v. State, 3 Md.App. 237, 238 A.2d 581. The rule is not without exceptions, however, so that the prior conviction may be shown when it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Conyers v. State
...rea of reckless or wanton disregard to support conviction for malicious destruction of property plainly erroneous); Fowler v. State, 7 Md.App. 264, 254 A.2d 715 (1969)(error in instructing jury that it could use past criminal record in determining defendant's guilt). See also Squire v. Stat......
-
State v. Hutchinson
...case because the State had failed to properly raise its claim that appellant's contentions were not reviewable. 1 In Fowler v. State, 7 Md.App. 264, 254 A.2d 715 (1969), the trial judge incorrectly informed the jury that they could consider appellant's criminal record for purposes of determ......
-
Johnson v. State
...of the defendant but to show motive, intent, absence of mistake or accident, a common scheme or identity. See Fowler v. State, 7 Md.App. 264, 267, 254 A.2d 715. We call attention, without implying approval or disapproval, to People v. Coffey, 67 Cal.2d 204, 60 Cal.Rptr. 457, 430 P.2d 15 (Ca......