Sanders v. State
Decision Date | 17 August 1967 |
Docket Number | No. 225,225 |
Citation | 1 Md.App. 630,232 A.2d 555 |
Parties | Douglas Lornell SANDERS v. STATE of Maryland. |
Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Robert C. Heeney, John F. McAuliffe, Rockville, for appellant.
Edward F. Borgerding, Asst. Atty. Gen., Baltimore, Francis B. Burch, Atty. Gen., Baltimore, William A. Linthicum, Jr., State's Atty. for Montgomery County, Thomas A. Lohm, Asst. State's Atty. for Montgomery County, Rockville, on the brief, for appellee.
Before ANDERSON, MORTON, ORTH, and THOMPSON, JJ., and WILLIAM J. TRAVERS, Special Judge.
On May 19, 1966, the appellant was convicted with a co-defendant, Clyde H. Bickford, of the crimes of robbery with a deadly weapon and conspiring to rob with a deadly weapon, by a jury in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Judge Kathryn J. Shook, presiding. He was sentenced to imprisonment for a term of ten years for each offense, the sentences to run consecutively.
On appeal the appellant contends:
1. The trial court erred in denying a motion for judgment of acquittal;
a) with regard to the offense of robbery with a deadly weapon.
b) with regard to the offense of conspiring to rob with a deadly weapon.
2. The trial court erred in preventing certain witnesses from testifying for the appellant.
We shall first consider the second contention. William Howard Clements, who was also arrested for the robbery for which the appellant was convicted and who was an admitted participant in the crime, was granted immunity by the State to testify for the prosecution. He was the State's key witness and the conviction of the appellant depended in large measure on his detailed and lengthy testimony. Sandra Lee Clements, the wife of William Howard Clements, was called by the defense to testify on behalf of the appellant. She was asked on direct examination if Clements had made any statements to her relative to the case. She answered 'Yes' and objection was made to the next question, 'What did he say?' The objection was overruled and the witness said Clements had made such statements when he came to their apartment in the early morning of December 23rd. At this point the trial court requested a conference at the bench. After discussion off the record, counsel for the appellant put the following proffer on the record:
'Your Honor, I proffer to show by this witness that she would testify that on December 23, 1965, in the early morning hours following his release on personal bond that the witness, Billy Clements, came to the apartment of the witness, now on the stand, and told her he had involved innocent people and that Sanders was not guilty of anything but he had gotten off and he went along with anything the police told him.'
Although the record does not disclose an objection by the State, the Court said, and the bench conference was concluded. The defense called Floyd William Spong. He testified that he had a conversation about the robbery with Clements at the Dark Horse Bar in Rockville just before Christmas of 1965. When asked what the conversation was the State objected. At the bench, defense counsel made the following proffer:
'MR. HEENEY: Your Honor, this witness would say that in the presence of Johnny Seward, Richard Mallory, Patsy Wilson, that the witness, Billy Clements, stated that Douglas Sanders had no knowledge of or any part of the robbery at the H & I or any of the charges against him and that he, Billy Clements, had only agreed to what the Detective said to save himself and that he would not face 20 years in prison if there was any way out of it and would not care if he had to make a deal to give him his grandmother to do it.
I have got to ask you something. I'm thinking about-I made a terrible mistake in this case and I think the State's Attorney is right that I should have asked first when Billy Clements was on the stand-I should have asked him these questions. I calculated wrong. It was a matter of trial strategy and I think I have calculated wrong in view of the Court's ruling and I earnestly ask Your Honor to let me correct this somehow so we don't have any criticism of me later on.
(Conclusion of bench conference.)'
It appears from the record that the objection was sustained although there is no affirmative ruling. The defense called Johnny Edward Seward. He was asked if he talked to Clements about the robbery. The witness stated that he had, on December 23, 1965. There was objection to the question as to what Clements said about the robbery.
The following took place at the bench:
(Conclusion of bench conference.)'
Later in the trial, the following transpired at the bench:
'MR. HEENEY: Your Honor, after some thought trying to figure how I can cure what I feel is an error on my part, I'd like to call Billy Clements to the stand.
I think he is available and I would like the Court to, since he was the State's witness and obviously is not my witness and cannot readily vouch for his testimony, I wonder if you would declare him a hostile witness. You don't have to tell the jury that, but just let me ask him this impeaching question that I should have asked.
(Conclusion of bench conference.)'
Defense counsel then called William Howard Clements. The record discloses the following:
'THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, this will be a direct examination in as much as counsel for Mr. Sanders has called this...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Kidd
...136 Md. 518, 523, 111 A. 78 (1920). See generally Cooper v. State, 14 Md.App. 106, 110-111, 286 A.2d 579 (1972); Sanders v. State, 1 Md.App. 630, 640-641, 232 A.2d 555 (1967).No question was raised in the case sub judice, below or an appeal, regarding the laying of the foundation for the in......
-
State v. Sowell
...on evidence showing that he was merely an accessory and vice versa. Clark and Marshall, Crimes, supra, § 8.05, p. 462; Sanders v. State, 1 Md.App. 630, 232 A.2d 555. It is stated in Perkins on Criminal Law (1957), ch. 6, § 8, D, 1 b, page "The case may be lost in advance either by carelessn......
-
Bane v. State
...or desirable." Devan v. State, 17 Md.App. 182, 193, 300 A.2d 705, cert. denied, 268 Md. 747 (1973). See also, Sanders v. State, 1 Md.App. 630, 232 A.2d 555 (1967). Here, the State gave the appellant the following facts concerning the prior statement: 1. The time--March 14, 1986. 2. To whom ......
-
Boone v. State
...generally lie. Brown v. Bendix Radio Division of Bendix Aviation Corp., 187 Md. 613, 620, 51 A.2d 292 (1946). Compare Sanders v. State, 1 Md.App. 630, 232 A.2d 555. In East Baltimore Transfer Co. v. Goeb, 140 Md. 534, 118 A. 74 (1922), the case was allowed to be re-opened for the purpose of......