Grimes v. State, 108

CourtCourt of Appeals of Maryland
Writing for the CourtArgued before MURPHY; PER CURIAM; MURPHY
Citation464 A.2d 1065,297 Md. 1
PartiesMack Donald GRIMES v. STATE of Maryland.
Docket NumberNo. 108,108
Decision Date08 September 1983

Page 1

297 Md. 1
464 A.2d 1065
Mack Donald GRIMES
STATE of Maryland.
No. 108.
Court of Appeals of Maryland.
Sept. 8, 1983.

[464 A.2d 1066] John Grason Turnbull, II, Towson (Douglas T. Sachse and Turnbull, Mix & Farmer, Towson, on brief), for appellant.

Page 2

Richard B. Rosenblatt, Asst. Atty. Gen., Baltimore (Stephen H. Sachs, Atty. Gen., Baltimore, on brief), for appellee.



Appellant Mack D. Grimes was convicted in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County of assault with intent to murder. Prior to trial he filed a motion to suppress the hypnotically enhanced testimony of the victim of the crime. That motion was overruled in a scholarly opinion by the trial judge (Alpert, J.) The case then was submitted on an agreed statement of facts to yet another judge who convicted. An appeal followed to the Court of Special Appeals. We granted a writ of certiorari prior to argument in that court in order that we might consider this case with a number of others involving hypnotically enhanced testimony.

The parties have agreed to a statement of facts in this Court pursuant to Maryland Rule 828 g. No useful purpose would be served by a recitation of those facts. Suffice it to say that in this case the victim was unable to remember anything after she went into the bathroom of Grimes followed by Grimes' co-defendant, Barbara Felder. It is indicated that she suffered from hysterical amnesia. Under hypnosis she allegedly was able to recall certain events that previously had been lost to her. She then related the events of the night in question involving appellant and Felder.

At the hearing on the motion to suppress the State stipulated that if the victim's hypnotically enhanced testimony was suppressed, then "all of her testimony in regard to criminal agency should be suppressed."

We have just considered the matter of hypnotically enhanced testimony in State v. Collins, --- Md. ---, 464 A.2d 1028 (1983), argued the same day this case was argued. We adopted the test laid down in Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C.Cir.1923), adopted in Maryland in Reed v. State,

Page 3

283 Md. 374, 391 A.2d 364 (1978), "as the basis for evaluation of testimony where a witness has been hypnotized." We declined to follow the procedures outlined in State v. Hurd, 86 N.J. 525, 432 A.2d 86 (1981), for the admission of hypnotically enhanced testimony. We said that we...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • People v. Guerra
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • 21 Noviembre 1984 two (State v. Metscher (1983) 297 Md. 368, 464 A.2d 1052 (forcible oral copulation and assault with intent to maim); Grimes v. State (1983) 297 Md. 1, 464 A.2d 1065 (assault with intent to murder)), affirmed in a third (Simkus v. State (1983) 296 Md. 718, 464 A.2d 1055), and in the fourt......
  • Burral v. State, 10
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • 12 Febrero 1999
    ...the witness to testify, or the circumstances of the case. See also Simkus v. State, 296 Md. 718, 464 A.2d 1055 (1983); Grimes v. State, 297 Md. 1, 464 A.2d 1065 (1983); State v. Metscher, 297 Md. 368, 464 A.2d 1052 (1983); and Calhoun v. State, 297 Md. 563, 468 A.2d 45 (1983), cert. denied,......
  • Calhoun v. State, s. 129
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • 21 Noviembre 1983
    ...(1983); State v. Metscher, 297 Md. 368, 464 A.2d 1052 (1983); Simkus v. State, 296 Md. 718, 464 A.2d 1055 (1983), and Grimes v. State, 297 Md. 1, 464 A.2d 1065 (1983). James Arthur Calhoun was convicted by a Montgomery County jury of first degree, premeditated murder in the death of Philip ......
  • U.S. Gypsum Co. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 127
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • 1 Septiembre 1992
    ...293 F. 1013, 1014 (D.C.Cir.1923). See, e.g., State v. Metscher, 297 Md. 368, 374, 464 A.2d 1052, 1055 (1983); Grimes v. State, 297 Md. 1, 2-3, 464 A.2d 1065, 1066 (1983); State v. Collins, 296 Md. 670, 678-681, 464 A.2d 1028, 1032-1034 (1983); Eley v. State, 288 Md. 548, 553-554, 419 A.2d 3......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT