Summary
determining that defendant's testimony and admissions to police officers were sufficient to sustain a conviction for possession of marijuana, although the State failed to establish possession on August 3, 1959, the date alleged in the indictment
Summary of this case from Crispino v. StateOpinion
[No. 50, September Term, 1960.]
Decided December 7, 1960.
CRIMINAL LAW — Unlawful Possession Of Marijuana — State, Not Confined In Its Proof To Date In Indictment — Testimony Of Accomplices Found Corroborated. In the instant prosecution for unlawful possession of marijuana, it was held that the State was not confined in its proof to the date alleged in the indictment. A contention of the defendant that testimony of his two accomplices was uncorroborated was held to be without merit because his own testimony, his admissions to police officers and additional evidence corroborated his alleged accomplices and were sufficient to support the jury's verdict. pp. 531-532
Decided December 7, 1960.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Montgomery County (PUGH, J.).
William Carr Fulton was convicted of illegal possession of marijuana and he appealed.
Judgment affirmed; appellant to pay the costs.
The cause was argued before BRUNE, C.J., and HENDERSON, PRESCOTT and HORNEY, JJ.
James B. Davis, with whom was Victor L. Crawford on the brief, and Joseph Rosenthal, with whom was Norman N. Yankellow on the brief, for appellant.
Stedman Prescott, Jr., Deputy Attorney General, with whom were C. Ferdinand Sybert, Attorney General, Leonard T. Kardy and Harper M. Smith, State's Attorney and Assistant State's Attorney for Montgomery County, respectively, on the brief, for appellee.
The appellant was tried and convicted of possession of marijuana in violation of the Code (1957), Article 27, § 277, by a judge and jury in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County.
The indictment charged the possession as having been on August 3, 1959. The appellant makes two contentions: that the State failed to establish possession on August 3, 1959; and that the testimony of his two accomplices, one of whom was granted immunity, was not corroborated. Neither contention is substantial. The State was not confined in its proof to the date alleged in the indictment. Yanch v. State, 201 Md. 296, 93 A.2d 749; Mazer v. State, 212 Md. 60, 67, 127 A.2d 630; and cases therein cited. The appellant's own testimony at the trial, his admissions to the police officers and the additional evidence adduced by the State amply corroborated his alleged accomplices (for the purposes of this case, we assume, without deciding, that the witnesses Jay and Betty Kaiser were accomplices of the appellant), and were sufficient to support the verdict of the jury. Cf. Peachie v. State, 203 Md. 239, 100 A.2d 1.
Judgment affirmed, appellant to pay the costs.