Wilson v. State
| Decision Date | 17 June 1942 |
| Docket Number | No. 27.,27. |
| Citation | 26 A.2d 770 |
| Parties | WILSON v. STATE. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
WILSON
v.
STATE.
No. 27.
Court of Appeals of Maryland.
June 17, 1942.
[Copyrighted material omitted.]
Appeal from Circuit Court, Washington County; Jos. D. Mish, Judge.
Allen B. Wilson was convicted for unlawfully causing a drug to be used for the purpose of causing abortion, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Before SLOAN, DELAPLAINE, COLLINS, FORSYTHE, and MARBURY, JJ.
Calvert K. Hartle, of Hagerstown, for appellant.
Robert E. Clapp, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen. (William C. Walsh, Atty. Gen, and Charles F. Wagaman, State's Atty, of Hagerstown, on the brief), for appellee.
DELAPLAINE, Judge.
Dr. Allen B. Wilson, a physician of Hagerstown, was found guilty by a jury in the Circuit Court for Washington County on the charge of unlawfully causing a certain drug to be used by Frances Jane Stanley on August 9, 1941, for the purpose of causing abortion. Code, art. 27, sec. 3.
Mrs. Stanley, a resident of Pennsylvania, 21 years old, testified that she was married in June, 1941, and that she called at Dr. Wilson's office on July 31, when he administered a salve which he claimed would produce a miscarriage within 24 hours. As the miscarriage did not occur, she returned to his office on August 5, when he gave her another treatment. Suffering severe pains on August 8, she went to Hagerstown again, arriving there about 3 o'clock on the morning of August 9. Dr. Wilson gave her pills to alleviate her pain, and shortly afterwards a miscarriage occurred. She swore that she paid him $110 for his services.
Dr. Wilson complains because Mrs. Stanley testified that she saw him in November, 1940, and when she saw him again on July 31, 1941, she said to him: "I guess you know what I am here for." He contends that this testimony prejudiced the jury against him because they could infer from it that he caused an abortion in November, 1940. It is a general rule that when a person is placed on trial for an offense, he should not be prejudiced by the introduction of evidence of other independent acts of wrongdoing. But while guilt cannot generally be established by proving that the defendant has committed other crimes, nevertheless it is firmly established that evidence of declarations and acts may be admitted to show intent, or a common scheme embracing the commission of two or more crimes so related to each other that proof of one tends to establish the other. Young v. State, 152 Md. 89, 136 A. 46; Meno v. State, 117 Md. 435, 440, 83 A. 759. The abortion statute in Maryland does not apply where a physician superintends a case of abortion occurring spontaneously as the result of an accident, constitutional debility, or any other natural cause. So, in an abortion case, where guilty intent is an essential element of the crime charged, the State can prove a relevant fact which tends to show the defendant guilty of the crime charged, notwithstanding that it may also show him guilty of a similar distinct offense. People v. Popescue, 345 Ill. 142, 177 N.E. 739, 77 A.L.R. 1199, 1209. Such evidence is admitted not because it is proof of another crime, but because of its relevancy to the charge in issue. For a person cannot, by multiplying his crimes, diminish the volume of competent testimony against him. State v. Adams, 20 Kan. 311, 319; State v. Sullivan, 139 Or. 640, 11 P.2d 1054, 1058.
Evidence of declarations and acts, which are an immediate accompaniment of the act charged and so closely connected with the main fact as to constitute a part of it, and without...
To continue reading
Request your trial