Mahoney v. State, No. 30

CourtCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland
Writing for the CourtGILBERT
Citation281 A.2d 421,64 A.L.R.3d 1219,13 Md.App. 105
Docket NumberNo. 30
Decision Date01 October 1971
Parties, 64 A.L.R.3d 1219 John Patrick MAHONEY v. STATE of Maryland.

Page 105

13 Md.App. 105
281 A.2d 421, 64 A.L.R.3d 1219
John Patrick MAHONEY
v.
STATE of Maryland.
No. 30.
Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.
Oct. 1, 1971.

Page 106

[281 A.2d 422] John T. Bell, Rockville, and M. Albert Figinski, Baltimore, with whom were Charles W. Bell, and Frank S. Cornelius, Rockville, on brief, for appellant.

Gary Melick, Asst. Atty. Gen., with whom were Francis B. Burch, Atty. Gen., William A. Linthicum, Jr., State's Atty., and William M. Cave, Deputy State's Atty., for Montgomery County, on brief, for appellee.

Argued before THOMPSON, MOYLAN and GILBERT, JJ.

GILBERT, Judge.

John Patrick Mahoney was convicted of assault with intent to murder by a jury in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County. He was sentenced to a term of ten years, the last five years of which were suspended conditionally.

Ronald Lee Dorsey testified that on the evening of October 16, 1969, as he was leaving his residence, he noticed a van type truck which aroused his suspicions. He returned to the area of his home about 10 to 15 minutes later and again observed the parked vehicle. He wrote down the license number and asked the driver (later identified as appellant) what was going on. Two persons jumped from the van and ran. Dorsey then drove to a neighbor's house, which was a short distance up the street, in order to call the police. While he was

Page 107

talking to Mr. and Mrs. Handback, the neighbors, the same van came by and shots were fired in the direction of Dorsey. Two bullets hit the tailgate of Dorsey's pickup beside which he was standing. Dorsey jumped into the pickup and fled. Mr. and Mrs. Handback ran into their house. Dorsey was positive that the person he saw driving the van, when he first inquired as to what was going on, was the appellant. Dorsey said that the appellant stuck his head out of the door of the truck and that his (Dorsey's) headlights were shining on the appellant. Dorsey testified that the shots were coming from the driver's side of the van, but Mrs. Handback thought that the shots came from the passenger side of the vehicle.

The van was registered to the appellant and another. Appellant denied involvement and claimed that the van had been stolen. It was reported stolen to the police on the morning of October 17, 1969, at 9:05 a. m. Apparently it was recovered shortly thereafter. Appellant asserted that the behicle was stolen some time between 6:30 p. m. on the 16th, and 8:30 a. m. on the 17th of October. He further said that it had been hot-wired.

Appellant produced a number of witnesses who testified that appellant, in company with the other owner of the van, was in Odenton, Maryland, at the time of the shooting and was there until the bars closed at 2:00 a. m.

Detective Marvin Gulick of the Montgomery County Police Department, investigated the incident, and at his request appellant went to police headquarters. At that time the appellant had on his person a Virginia fishing license, which stated a false residence.

Approximately 45 days after the trial, the trial judge had the appellant, his attorney, a representative of the State's Attorney's Office, and a court reporter brought into his chambers, where he conducted a broad examination into the appellant's personal and marital situation, the number of children, Job, salary and prior convictions, as well as a charge upon which he had not been convicted. The court then inquired as to whether an appeal had

Page 108

been filed or whether one was contemplated. The latter question was answered in the affirmative.

On appeal, the appellant raises three questions.

1. The admissibility of certain evidence.

2. The sufficiency of the evidence.

3. The sentencing procedure.

[281 A.2d 423] I

ADMISSIBILITY OF CERTAIN EVIDENCE

The first witness produced by the defense was Detective Gulick, who was asked, relative to the conversation he had with appellant in the police station, 'What did you say to him, and what did he say to you?' The sergeant gave a lengthy answer, during the course of which he said, 'I then questioned him about a fishing license.' Counsel interrupted with another question, and the examination of the sergeant continued.

On cross-examination, the Deputy State's Attorney asked the question, 'Where was that fishing license from?' Appellant objected on the ground that the question was beyond the scope of the examination, and irrelevant. The trial judge overruled the objection, and the witness was allowed to answer. The witness then answered the question, stating that the license showed a home address of 'I believe some place in the Fort Belvoir, Virginia area, a resident fishing license.' When asked, 'What state, of the State of Maryland?' the witness answered, 'Virginia.' He then continued with a discourse during which he related to the jury how the appellant had lied about his address in order to obtain a cheaper rate, and that conresidency fees were higher than residency fees. No objection was made by the appellant to the non-responsive dialogue, nor was there a motion made to strike the answer.

Here, appellant contends that the testimony should not have been allowed. We think otherwise. In the appellant's initial examination of Detective Gulick, he had asked what was said by the appellant to the detective,

Page 109

and, among other things, in the response was the matter of the fishing license. We cannot find the answer to the State's question, 'Where was that fishing license from?' to be harmful to the appellant because the question asked only the name of the state and not if the license was a resident or non-resident one. It was the voluntary non-responsive dialogue to which no objection and no...

To continue reading

Request your trial
23 practice notes
  • Andresen v. State, No. 152
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • January 10, 1975
    ...and other matters that a judge ought to have before him in determining the sentence that should be imposed, Mahoney v. State, 13 Md.App. 105, 281 A.2d 421; Smith v. State, 5 Md.App. 633, 248 A.2d 913. The sentencing judge may properly consider information obtained outside the courtroom and ......
  • Bremer v. State, No. 583
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • July 6, 1973
    ...who treated them, and by several eyewitnesses was legally sufficient to prove the corpus delicti of each crime. 2 See Mahoney v. State, 13 Md.App. 105, 281 A.2d 421. The testimony of two Page 300 eyewitnesses who made a positive judicial identification of Bremer as the person who fired the ......
  • State v. Jenkins
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • October 7, 1986
    ...discharging it in random fashion.' Hoes v. State, 35 Md.App. 61, 74, 368 A.2d 1080, cert. denied 280 Md. 731 (1977); Mahoney v. State, 13 Md.App. 105, 110, 281 A.2D 421 (1971), cert. denied 264 Md. 750, cert. denied 409 U.S. 978, 93 S.Ct. 306, 34 L.Ed.2d 241 "What we have, then, is the fact......
  • State v. Huey, No. 2253
    • United States
    • Appellate Court of Connecticut
    • May 15, 1984
    ...inquiry Page 621 gives rise to the inference that the severity of the sentence rests upon the defendant's response. Mahoney v. State, 13 Md.App. 105, 113, 281 A.2d 421 (1971), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 978, 93 S.Ct. 306, 34 L.Ed.2d 241 (1972). After a verdict of guilty, a defendant may continu......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
23 cases
  • Andresen v. State, No. 152
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • January 10, 1975
    ...and other matters that a judge ought to have before him in determining the sentence that should be imposed, Mahoney v. State, 13 Md.App. 105, 281 A.2d 421; Smith v. State, 5 Md.App. 633, 248 A.2d 913. The sentencing judge may properly consider information obtained outside the courtroom and ......
  • Bremer v. State, No. 583
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • July 6, 1973
    ...who treated them, and by several eyewitnesses was legally sufficient to prove the corpus delicti of each crime. 2 See Mahoney v. State, 13 Md.App. 105, 281 A.2d 421. The testimony of two Page 300 eyewitnesses who made a positive judicial identification of Bremer as the person who fired the ......
  • State v. Jenkins
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • October 7, 1986
    ...discharging it in random fashion.' Hoes v. State, 35 Md.App. 61, 74, 368 A.2d 1080, cert. denied 280 Md. 731 (1977); Mahoney v. State, 13 Md.App. 105, 110, 281 A.2D 421 (1971), cert. denied 264 Md. 750, cert. denied 409 U.S. 978, 93 S.Ct. 306, 34 L.Ed.2d 241 "What we have, then, is the fact......
  • State v. Huey, No. 2253
    • United States
    • Appellate Court of Connecticut
    • May 15, 1984
    ...inquiry Page 621 gives rise to the inference that the severity of the sentence rests upon the defendant's response. Mahoney v. State, 13 Md.App. 105, 113, 281 A.2d 421 (1971), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 978, 93 S.Ct. 306, 34 L.Ed.2d 241 (1972). After a verdict of guilty, a defendant may continu......
  • 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