Goodman v. State
| Decision Date | 07 December 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 88,88 |
| Citation | 205 A.2d 53,237 Md. 64 |
| Parties | James S. GOODMAN v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Barnard T. Welsh, Rockville (Elizabeth Tennery, Rockville, on the brief), for appellant.
Guy J. Cicone, Sp. Atty., Baltimore (Thomas B. Finan, Atty. Gen., Baltimore, and Leonard T. Kardy, State's Atty. for Montgomery County, Rockville, on the brief), for appellee.
Before HENDERSON, C. J., and HAMMOND, PRESCOTT, MARBURY and OPPENHEIMER, JJ.
On May 30, 1961, James S. Goodman, appellant, entered the office of Dr. Norman C. Shoemaker at 8005 Woodbury Drive in Montgomery County, Maryland, and falsely represented himself to be Gordon L. Bennett. Appellant complained of suffering severe pains in the left side of his abdomen. A urine sample was taken, and on microscopic examination showed 30 mg. of albumin, a considerable number of red cells and occasional pus cells. Appellant gave Dr. Shoemaker the false impression that he was suffering from some kidney disturbance, and to lessen the pain, the doctor recommended a drug. Appellant then requested dilaudid, a potent narcotic, as all other pain relieving drugs made him sick. Dr. Shoemaker wrote a prescription for four tablets of this drug, and told appellant that he should have a hospital X-ray examination. The patient took the prescription into Washington, D. C., where it was filled by a registered pharmacist at the Discount Drug Store, 7723 Georgia Avenue. The next morning, he called Dr. Shoemaker and admitted on the telephone that he was addicted to heroin, and wished to obtain more narcotics. The doctor made an appointment to see appellant, and thereafter notified the police. On June 1, 1961, appellant was arrested in Montgomery County and identified in a lineup by Dr. Shoemaker as the individual to whom he had given the prescription the day before.
The appellant's real name was James S. Goodman, and he was subsequently charged with violation of Maryland's narcotic laws. The indictment contained two counts, the first of which was abandoned. The second count alleged that the defendant: '* * * at the County aforesaid, unlawfully did obtain by a certain misrepresentation, a narcotic drug, to wit, a quantity of Dilaudid, in violation of Article 27, Section 295 of the Annotated Code of Maryland'. On February 11, 1964, Goodman was tried by a jury which returned a verdict of guilty on the second count, and he was sentenced by Judge Anderson to eighteen months in the Maryland House of Correction.
On appeal, the appellant presents one question: Where the indictment alleges the defendant unlawfully obtained in Maryland by misrepresentation a drug in violation of the narcotic laws, can a conviction under such an indictment be sustained where the evidence presented shows the misrepresentation took place in Maryland, but the obtention and purchase of the drug was in Washington, D. C.
Goodman was convicted under Article 27, Section 295 of the Annotated Code of Maryland (1957), which reads in part: '(a) No person shall obtain or attempt to obtain a narcotic drug, or procure or attempt to procure the administration of a narcotic drug (1) by fraud, deceit, misrepresentation or subterfuge; or (2) by the forgery or alteration of a prescription or of any written order; or (3) by the concealment of a material fact; or (4) by the use of a false name or the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Jones, 720
...656. Appellee argues that only the District has jurisdiction of the first degree rape charged in this case, relying on Goodman v. State, 237 Md. 64, 205 A.2d 53 (1964). Appellant there was convicted under Art. 27, § 295, Md.Ann.Code (1957, 1966 Cum.Supp., Vol. 3), which provided that no "pe......
-
Urciolo v. State
...County. An offense against the laws of this state is punishable only when the offense is committed within its territory. Goodman v. State, 237 Md. 64, 205 A.2d 53 (1964); Breeding v. State, 220 Md. 193, 151 A.2d 743 (1959); Bowen v. State, Since upon the facts of this case there was no poss......
-
Pennington v. State
...those crimes committed within its territorial limits. 3 See, e.g., Urciolo v. State, 272 Md. 607, 325 A.2d 878 (1974); Goodman v. State, 237 Md. 64, 205 A.2d 53 (1964); Bowen v. State, 206 Md. 368, 111 A.2d 844 (1955); Stout v. State, 76 Md. 317, 25 A. 299 (1892). If the various elements of......
-
State v. Adams
...the checks took place in D.C. The conviction by a Maryland Court was reversed for lack of jurisdiction. Another case is Goodman v. State, 237 Md. 64 [205 A.2d 53 (1964)], where a person obtained a prescription falsely to obtain narcotic drugs in County, went to the District of Columbia and ......