Hyson v. State
| Decision Date | 11 April 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 212,212 |
| Citation | 225 Md. 140,169 A.2d 449 |
| Parties | Edward G. HYSON v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Alan H. Murrell, Baltimore (John W. Moyer, Towson, on the brief), for appellant.
Clayton A. Dietrich, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Thomas B. Finan, Atty. Gen., Frank H. Newell, III, and Paul J. Feeley, State's Atty. and Asst. State's Atty. for Baltimore County, Towson, on the brief), for appellee.
Before BRUNE, C. J., and HENDERSON, HAMMOND, PRESCOTT and HORNEY, JJ.
The appellant was convicted of conspiracy by a judge of the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, sitting without a jury.
He raises a single question, only, on this appeal, claiming the trial court committed reversible error in admitting a part of a written statement made by a witness, one Albert R. Moyer, who was one of the alleged co-conspirators and had been called by the State.
The appellant was indicted for having conspired with Alton R. Moyer and Albert R. Moyer (the two Moyers being twin brother) to burglarize a certain pharmacy. Prior to Hyson's trial, both Moyers had pled guilty to the burglary of the pharmacy. Hyson denied the conspiracy accusation and pled not guilty. Albert R. Moyer had given a signed statement to the police, in which he admitted his guilt and directly implicated Hyson.
At Hyson's trial, Alton R. Moyer was called by the State. He confessed his guilt and gave testimony, which, if true, also established the guilt of Hyson as well as the other Moyer. Then Albert R. Moyer was called by the State and he repudiated much of his former written statement, testifying that neither he nor Hyson was guilty. The State claimed surprise. The defense denied the surprise, claiming that the witness had notified both the police and the Assistant State's Attorney of such repudiation before he had been called as a witness. The court believed the State had been surprised and admitted, 'such parts of the statement as the State used in cross examining this witness, not the complete statement.' And this is the ruling of the court, made over his objection, that the appellant contends constituted prejudicial error.
We have set forth the facts somewhat cursorily and without too much detail; because, as we shall soon see, we do not reach the questions as to whether the State made out a proper case of 'surprise,' or, assuming the State did establish surprise, should the State have been confined to a showing that the witness had made a prior inconsistent...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tichnell v. State
...State, 236 Md. 137, 144, 202 A.2d 585 (1964), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 1001, 85 S.Ct. 721, 13 L.Ed.2d 702 (1965); Hyson v. State, 225 Md. 140, 169 A.2d 449 (1961) (per curiam); Journigan v. State, 223 Md. 405, 412, 164 A.2d 896 (1960); State Roads Comm. v. Bare, 220 Md. 91, 94, 151 A.2d 154 (......
-
Sutton v. State
...v. Fidelity Storage, 270 Md. 184, 310 A.2d 778 (1973); Spriggs v. Levitt & Sons, Inc., 267 Md. 679, 298 A.2d 442 (1973); Hyson v. State, 225 Md. 140, 169 A.2d 449 (1961); Journigan v. State, 223 Md. 405, 164 A.2d 896 (1960); State Roads Comm. v. Bare, 220 Md. 91, 151 A.2d 154 (1959); Davis ......
-
Brenneman v. State, CR
...to Johnson's testimony. Whatever the reason, this failure was a waiver of the objection to the testimony of Pelts. Hyson v. State, 225 Md. 140, 169 A.2d 449 (1961); Peal v. State, 232 Md. 329, 193 A.2d 53 (1963); Barber v. State, 191 Md. 555, 62 A.2d 616 (1948); State v. Godwin, 224 N.C. 84......
-
Whitfield v. State, 793
...on the "common scheme theory." Only Whitfield's argument as to the oral testimony was thus preserved for appeal, Hyson v. State, 225 Md. 140, 169 A.2d 449 (1961). Little has no standing to raise the issue. Nevertheless, pursuant to Md. Rule 1085, we shall consider the issue with respect to ......