Lamb v. State

• Decision Date: 17 December 1886
• Citation: Lamb v. State, 66 Md. 285, 7 A. 399 (Md. 1886)
• Parties: LAMB v. STATE.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

7 A. 399

66 Md. 285

LAMB v. STATE.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

December 17, 1886

Appeal from circuit court, Baltimore county.

Indictment for attempting to procure an abortion.

Benjamin Kurtz, for appellant.

Atty. Gen. Roberts and N. C. Burke, for the State.

STONE J.

In this case the defendant, Lamb, was indicted in the circuit court for Baltimore county for attempting to procure a miscarriage and abortion upon a certain Rachael A. Taylor. There are two counts in the indictment. The first count charges the defendant with knowingly and willfully furnishing to Rachael A. Taylor, a pregnant woman, certain drops and medicines for the purpose of producing an abortion. The second count charges the defendant with advising and soliciting Rachael A Taylor to take certain drugs and medicines for the purpose of producing an abortion. A general demurrer was filed by the accused to the indictment, which was overruled, and he then pleaded not guilty, and the case was tried before the court. At the trial, the defendant reserved two exceptions to the admissibility of evidence offered by the state, and admitted by the court below, and these exceptions are properly before this court.

In the first exception, after the state had proved, by the witness Taylor, that the defendant had furnished her with some pills and drops, and advised her to take them, saying that they would destroy the child with which she was then pregnant, the state then asked the witness the following question: "Did Lamb [[the accused] ever propose any other means to you, other than the taking of this medicine, for the purpose of producing the abortion?" To this question the witness replied, in substance, that the accused took her, the witness, to the office of a doctor in Baltimore, and told her she must go through an operation to destroy the unborn child, but the witness refused to submit to such operation. To this question and answer the defendant objected, but the court overruled the objection, and permitted the question to be asked and answered, and the defendant excepted. The gravamen of the offense charged against the accused was the purpose and intention of the accused to produce an abortion upon the body of Rachael A. Taylor, and he is charged in the indictment with endeavoring to effect that purpose by furnishing her with drugs, and advising her to take them. Any declarations or acts of the defendant tending to show his intention and purpose to produce such abortion are admissible, whether such acts and declarations were prior or subsequent to the particular act charged in the indictment. That he made a subsequent attempt to accomplish the same purpose by different means is admissible to show with what purpose and intent he made the attempt charged in the indictment, as well as to corroborate the evidence of the first attempt.

In the case of The King v. Ellis, 6 Barn. & C. 145, the prisoner, a shopman, was indicted for robbing his employer's money drawer of a particular sum of money on a particular day. At the trial, evidence was admitted that the prisoner had robbed the drawer at other times. Upon review, the court BAYLEY, J., delivering the opinion, said: "Generally speaking, it is not competent to a prosecutor to prove a man guilty of one felony by proving...