Opinion
[No. 84, September Term, 1964.]
Decided October 23, 1964.
CRIMINAL LAW — Failure To Produce Informer At The Trial Where State Furnished Appellant With His Name And Last Known Address Did Not Vitiate Trial. p. 627
EVIDENCE — Was Sufficient In Instant Narcotics Case. p. 627
H.C. Decided October 23, 1964.
Appeal from the Criminal Court of Baltimore (GRADY, J.).
Paul Walter Owens was convicted of violating the narcotic drugs law and from the judgment entered thereon, he appeals.
Judgment affirmed.
The cause was argued before HENDERSON, C.J., and HAMMOND, PRESCOTT, HORNEY and SYBERT, JJ.
George L. Russell, Jr., with whom was Rickard K. Jacobsen on the brief, for appellant.
Robert L. Karwacki, Assistant Attorney General, with whom were Thomas B. Finan, Attorney General, William J. O'Donnell and George J. Helinski, State's Attorney and Assistant State's Attorney, respectively, for Baltimore City, on the brief, for appellee.
In this narcotics case the appellant argues that it was the duty of the State to produce the informer at the trial. The State furnished to the appellant the name and last known address of the informer. The fact that neither the State nor the accused was able to locate the informer, despite several postponements, does not vitiate the trial. There is no suggestion that the State sought to suppress any information in its possession, or to conceal the whereabouts of the witness.
We think the evidence supports a finding that the appellant was acting on his own behalf or that of the supplier, and not as an agent of Officer Clark or the informer, in making the sales. Snead v. State, 234 Md. 63, 66. In any event, the counts for possession would support the verdicts and sentences. State v. Brown, 235 Md. 401; Bafford v. State, 235 Md. 41.
Judgment affirmed.