Schroder v. State, 54
| Court | Court of Appeals of Maryland |
| Citation | 206 Md. 261,111 A.2d 587 |
| Docket Number | No. 54,54 |
| Parties | Heinz A. SCHRODER v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Decision Date | 14 February 1955 |
Page 261
v.
STATE of Maryland.
Page 262
Harold E. Naughton, Cumberland, for appellant.
James H. Norris, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen. (Edward D. E. Rollins, Atty. Gen., and Paul M. Fletcher, State's Atty. Allegany Co., and James S. Getty, Asst. State's Atty. Allegany Co., Cumberland, on the brief), for appellee.
Before BRUNE, Chief Judge, and DELAPLAINE, COLLINS, HENDERSON and HAMMOND, JJ.
BRUNE, Chief Judge.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court for Allegany County entered upon a verdict of guilty under an indictment which charged the appellant with bigamy. The questions raised by the appeal are these: first, whether it was error for the trial court to permit the introduction into evidence of a marriage certificate not constituting a public, official record; and second, whether it was error for the trial court to permit the case to remain open for the introduction of additional documentary evidence by the State after testimony and argument had been concluded by both sides. In the interest of
Page 263
brevity and simplicity, we shall take these questions up in reverse order to that in which they arose and in which they are stated above and in the briefs.The appellant was indicted on April 9, 1953, but because of continuances granted [111 A.2d 588] to the State at three terms of Court the case did not come to trial until April 20, 1954. At the trial the prosecuting witness, Elsie Walther Schroder, a resident of New Jersey, testified that she was married to the appellant in Hoboken, New Jersey, on December 13, 1947. She further testified that the ceremony was performed by a Reverend John Lehnert in the office of John Muller, a Justice of the Peace and a real estate dealer. Testimony showed that John Muller, the real estate dealer, had made all arrangements for the marriage for a fee of fifty dollars. Appellant denied entering into a marriage with the prosecutrix but admitted that he had signed the application for the marriage license in the office of John Muller. A certificate of marriage, purporting to be signed by the Reverend Mr. Lehnert and by two witnesses, was admitted into evidence over the objection of the appellant. The prosecutrix was not certain whether she had received it from the Reverend Mr. Lehnert or from John Muller. This certificate did not constitute a public official record and therefore could not have been authenticated as such. A child was born to the appellant and the prosecutrix on September 30, 1948. The appellant's testimony, if true, would bastardize this child.
The appellant admitted that on May 30, 1952, using the fictitious name of Johannas A. Schroter, he married Betty Jane Wilson in Cumberland. They have no child. He attributed his use of a fictitious name to what he claimed to be business reasons, the establishment of credit. Just how this would help him to establish credit is not made clear.
After the State and the defense had rested and after argument had been concluded on April 20, 1954, the trial judge expressed his then belief that the defendant was guilty, but ordered that an investigation of the case be
Page 264
made by the probation officer and further stated...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Evans v. State, s. 66
...Johnson v. State, 237 Md. 283, 288, 206 A.2d 138 (1965); McKenzie v. State, 236 Md. 597, 601, 204 A.2d 678 (1964); Schroder v. State, 206 Md. 261, 265, 111 A.2d 587 (1955). See, in addition, the review of cases recently set forth in State v. Frazier, 298 Md. 422, 451-452, 470 A.2d 1269 (198......
-
State v. Frazier, s. 94
...as a discretionary matter, rarely subject to reversal upon review. 21 As Chief Judge Brune stated for the Court in Schroder v. State, 206 Md. 261, 265, 111 A.2d 587 "It has long been a well settled rule in this State that the granting or refusing of a continuance is within the sound discret......
-
Boone v. State, 106
...further proof to come in. There is no showing that his action was arbitrary nor that his discretion was abused. See Schroder v. State, 206 Md. 261, 265, 111 A.2d 587 (1955) and Willey v. Glass, 242 Md. 156, 163, 218 A.2d 212 Page 101 [233 A.2d 488] II EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES Appellant's fo......
-
Neustadter v. Holy Cross Hosp. of Silver Spring Inc., 12
...of the trial court, and, accordingly, the decision is subject to a great degree of deference on appellate review. See Schroder v. State, 206 Md. 261, 265, 111 A.2d 587, 589 (1955) (“It has long been a well settled rule in this State that the granting or refusing of a continuance is within t......