Schroder v. State

Citation206 Md. 261,111 A.2d 587
Decision Date14 February 1955
Docket NumberNo. 54,54
PartiesHeinz A. SCHRODER v. STATE of Maryland.
CourtCourt of Appeals of Maryland

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 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 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 made by the probation officer and further stated that he wanted the marriage license record [from New Jersey], certified under the Act of Congress, brought in before he made any final disposition of the case. He also commented that it should have been so presented that day. On May 29, 1954, the case was resumed and the marriage record from New Jersey, duly certified and authenticated, was offered and admitted into evidence. This record included copies of the declarations of the male applicant and of the female applicant for a marriage license and the marriage certificate. It shows that the marriage was performed by the Reverend J. Lehnert at Hoboken, New Jersey, on December 13, 1947, in the presence of the same witnesses who were named in the certificate offered at the trial on April 20, 1954. The appellant objected to the admission of the record, stating that the prosecuting witness was not available for further cross-examination. When the court asked what the appellant expected to prove, the answer was that he did not know what he could prove but he could cross-examine in reference to the exhibits. The court further offered the appellant time to produce the prosecutrix under the Uniform Witness Act but the appellant declined the offer.

The admissibility of the authenticated marriage record is not challenged. It was clearly admissible as evidence. Code 1951, Article 35, Section 50; Wright v. State, 198 Md. 163, 81 A.2d 602; U.S.C., Title 28, Section 1739. The only challenge is based on the time of its admission. This has two aspects--one that the case ought not to have been continued or reopened at all after the trial on April 20th; the other that admitting this evidence in the absence of the prosecuting witness deprived the appellant of the opportunity to cross-examine her further. The latter objection seems wholly without merit, both because the opportunity for further questioning of this witness was offered by the Court and declined by the appellant and because there is no suggestion whatever as to what information of value to the appellant could have bee obtained by such cross-examination.

The appellant's contention that the trial...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Evans v. State
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • September 1, 1984
    ...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
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • September 1, 1982
    ...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 (1955): "It has long been a well settled rule in this State that the granting or refusing of a continuance is within the sound......
  • Boone v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • September 28, 1967
    ...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 II EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES Appellant's fourth and fifth contentio......
  • Neustadter v. Holy Cross Hosp. of Silver Spring Inc.
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • February 24, 2011
    ...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 the soun......
  • 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