Grove v. State
| Decision Date | 08 January 1946 |
| Docket Number | 17. |
| Parties | GROVE v. STATE. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Washington County; Joseph D. Mish, Judge.
Richard Cecil Grove was convicted of burning a storage building, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
D. Angle Wolfinger, of Hagerstown, for appellant.
J Edgar Harvey, Asst. Atty. Gen. (William Curran, Atty. Gen and Martin L. Ingram, St. Atty. for Washington Co., of Hagerstown, on the brief), for appellee.
Before DELAPLAINE, COLLINS, GRASON, HENDERSON, and MARKELL, JJ.
The grand jury for Washington County returned an indictment which charged 'that Richard Cecil Grove, late of Washington County aforesaid, on the 6th day of October, A. D. 1944, with force and arms at Washington County aforesaid, a certain storage building (not a parcel of a dwelling house) the property of Christy McEwen, t/a McEwen Furniture Company wilfully and maliciously did set fire to and burn'. To this indictment the defendant pleaded not guilty and elected to be tried before the court, without the aid of a jury. The court rendered a verdict of guilty and thereafter sentenced Grove to 'be confined in the Maryland Penitentiary for the period of Seven Years'. The traverser appealed to this court.
In the fall of 1944 several fires occurred within the limits of the City of Hagerstown. On the 26th day of October, 1944, the traverser was taken to Police Headquarters in Hagerstown where he confessed that he set fire to the building of the McEwen Furniture Company on October 6, 1944. This confession was taken down by a stenographer, in shorthand. The traverser then told the police he started another fire, referred to as the 'Ayers' fire. The stenographer took the second confession in shorthand. While he was transcribing his notes of these confessions, the police took the traverser to the scene of the two fires mentioned, and upon returning to Headquarters Grove he gave another statement confessing his guilt in setting fire to a barn on a farm owned by the City of Hagerstown; and a final and fourth statement confessing his guilt in setting fire to the Howard Brothers' building. The statement concerning each fire was typewritten separately and each was signed by Grove. Each confession was complete in itself and referred only to one fire.
At the trial of the case the confession of the accused, that he set fire to the storage building of Christy McEwen, trading as the McEwen Furniture Company, was offered in evidence. No contention is made that this confession was obtained by fear or any hope or inducement held out to the traverser by the officers obtaining it. The sole contention of traverser is that his confessions concerning other fires than the one for which he was on trial should have been admitted in evidence, because all of the confessions constituted one conversation, and that the alleged falsity of the confessions, that traverser set fire to other buildings than the one for which he was being tried, tended to cast doubt upon the truth of the confession of the crime charged in the indictment. This is the sole question presented on this record.
The traverser, in his brief, states: 'We respectfully submit that the trial Court erred in its rulings and that the error is substantial and prejudicial when it refused to allow the defense to show that the Appellant confessed to all four fires at one time and that it was in one entire confession and that they should have been allowed to produce evidence showing the confessions in the other fires to be false and untrue as reflecting upon the weight or credibility to be given to the confession and statement made in this case, the McEwen fire.'
The traverser's position is, although he does not specifically deny that he told the truth when he confessed that he set fire to and burned the storage building of McEwen, that, nevertheless, he did not tell the truth in other confessions and that he should be allowed to show this 'as reflecting upon the weight or credibility to be given to the confession and statement made in this case, the McEwen fire'. This contention is untenable.
All of the confessions were separate and distinct and signed by the accused. The law is clear on the subject.
'When the parts of a conversation connected with a confession of the crime charged can be separated from those relating to other offenses, only those parts which are material to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stano v. State
...In arguing to the court the state relied on three cases: Grove v. State, 211 Tenn. 448, 365 S.W.2d 871 (1963); Grove v. State, 185 Md. 476, 45 A.2d 348 (1946); and State v. Humphrey, 63 Or. 540, 128 P. 824 (1912). In Humphrey the Oregon Supreme Court held that a trial court properly refused......