Gorski v. State, 92
Decision Date | 21 April 1967 |
Docket Number | No. 92,92 |
Parties | Stanley Morris GORSKI v. STATE of Maryland. |
Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
James Robert Miller, Silver Spring, for appellant.
Lewis A. Noonberg, Asst. Atty. Gen., Baltimore, Robert C. Murphy, (former) Atty. Gen., John C. Cooper, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., Baltimore, Leonard T. Kardy, State's Atty. for Montgomery County, Ronald McDonald, Jr., Asst. State's Atty. for Montgomery County, Rockville, for appellee.
Before ANDERSON, MORTON, ORTH and THOMPSON, JJ., and KENNETH C. PROCTOR, Special Judge.
Appellant was convicted, under a two count indictment, of sodomy and assault and battery. He was sentenced to a term of 10 years.
This appeal from that judgment and sentence raises two questions:
(1) Did the trial court err in permitting a police officer to testify concerning admissions made to him by appellant of involvement in other criminal offenses?
(2) Did the trial court err in permitting the State to impeach appellant by interrogating him about a case in Prince George's County in which a jury had found appellant guilty of sodomy but in which no judgment or sentence had been entered and the time for taking an appeal had not expired?
In response to a question by the State concerning statements allegedly made by appellant a police officer, over objection, was permitted to testify that
In Wentz v. State, 159 Md. 161, 163-166, 150 A. 278, the Court of Appeals (p. 164, 150 A. p. 279) stated the general rule to be that "Offenses against other persons than the one against whom the offense with which the defendant is charged was committed are inadmissible." (citing Wharton on Criminal Evidence (10th Ed.), p. 170). 'The theory on which evidence of other offenses is excluded is that the jury may be misled into a conviction for an offense for which the defendant is not indicted, or that he may be prejudiced by the accumulation of offenses which he is not prepared to defend.' (p. 165, 150 A. p. 280). Quoting from Cothron v. State, 138 Md. 101, 110, 113 A. 620, 624, the Court of Appeals further stated that the exceptions to the general rule are "to prove the specific crime charged when it (the proffered evidence) tends to establish (1) motive, (2) intent, (3) absence of mistake or accident, (4) a common scheme or plan embracing the commission of two or more crimes so related to each other that proof of one tends to establish the other, (5) the identity of the person charged with the commission of the crime on trial."
In Berger v. State, 179 Md. 410, 414-415, 20 A.2d 146, 148, the Court of Appeals said Referring to State v. Lapage, 57 N.H. 245, the court said that '* * * it is not permissible on an indictment for an unnatural crime to show that the accused had admitted he had a tendency toward such practices.' See also MacEwen v. State, 194 Md. 492, 500-501, 71 A.2d 464.
The decisions in Hitzelberger v. State, 174 Md. 152, 161, 197 A. 605, (malfeasance of police officer in permitting...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Werner
...645, 650, 329 A.2d 430, cert. denied, 274 Md. 726 (1974); Wethington v. State [3 Md.App. 237, 238 A.2d 581 (1968) ], Gorski v. State [1 Md.App. 200, 228 A.2d 835 (1967) ], both supra. Additional exceptions have also been recognized: When the several offenses are so connected in point of tim......
-
Worthen v. State
...Weinstein v. State, 146 Md. 80, 88, 125 A. 889 (1924); Wethington v. State, 3 Md.App. 237, 240, 238 A.2d 581 (1968); Gorski v. State, 1 Md.App. 200, 202, 228 A.2d 835 (1967). This principle is merely an application of the policy rule prohibiting the initial introduction by the prosecution o......
-
Waine v. State
...Weinstein v. State, 146 Md. 80, 88, 125 A. 889 (1924); Wethington v. State, 3 Md.App. 237, 240, 238 A.2d 581 (1968); Gorski v. State, 1 Md.App. 200, 202, 228 A.2d 835 (1967). This principle is merely an application of the policy rule prohibiting the initial introduction by the prosecution o......
-
U.S. v. Day
...111 Utah 9, 175 P.2d 1016, 1022 (1947). See also Lovely v. United States, 169 F.2d 386, 388, 389 (4th Cir. 1948); Gorski v. State, 1 Md.App. 200, 228 A.2d 835 (1967). The district court appeared to take the position that the only connection between the "other crimes" and counts 9 to 15 was ......