Hoffman v. State
| Decision Date | 12 June 1901 |
| Citation | 49 A. 658,93 Md. 388 |
| Parties | HOFFMAN v. STATE. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Appeal from criminal court of Baltimore city; Charles E. Phelps Judge.
Edward N. Hoffman was convicted of theft, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Argued before McSHERRY, C.J., and FOWLER, BRISCOE, PEARCE, and SCHMUCKER, JJ.
Wm. C Smith, for appellant.
Atty.Gen Rayner and Robert M. McLane, for the State.
The traverser was indicted in the criminal court of Baltimore city for feloniously stealing $560, the money and property of Michael J. Ward. He was tried before a jury and convicted. At the trial the traverser took two exceptions to the refusal of the court to allow him to ask one of his witnesses certain questions. After the state had offered evidence tending to prove that the traverser had stolen the money mentioned in the indictment, he asked the following question of a witness called on his behalf: "Do you know the general reputation of Ward, the prosecuting witness?" To which the witness answered that he did. He was then asked what was Ward's general reputation for getting drunk, and afterwards accusing people of stealing money and articles of value from him. To this last question the state objected, and its objection was sustained. This ruling constitutes the first exception. The traverser then offered to prove by competent witnesses that the general reputation of Ward, the prosecuting witness, in the community in which he lived, was that of a man who frequently got drunk, and that on recovering from sprees he accused different persons of robbing him. The state's objection to this question was also sustained, and the traverser took his second exception. The verdict being against him, he has appealed.
Upon an examination of the record, we find nothing in it to show that Ward, whose reputation for veracity it was intended to impeach, had testified in the case. Certainly there is nothing to show that he testified that the traverser had stolen his money. It follows, therefore, that he could not be impeached; for, if he had given no testimony in the case, it was immaterial, so far as the issue involved was concerned whether his reputation for veracity was good or bad. It would therefore follow that there was no error in either of the rulings. But, in addition to this, it is well settled that if the object is, as it was here, to impeach the witness, the inquiry must be as to his reputation for truth and...
To continue reading
Request your trial