Reed v. Maryland9/6/1978
itled to his opinion as an expert is a matter which, in the nature of things, must be left largely to the discretion of the trial court, and its ruling thereon will not be disturbed unless clearly erroneous." Relative to expert testimony, see also Farley v. Yerman, 231 Md. 444, 451, 190 A.2d 773 (1963).
I have previously referred to Shanks v. State, 185 Md. 437, 45 A.2d 85 (1945), concerning evidence pertaining to blood.
Since Shanks this Court has held repeatedly that evidence which tends to identify the accused as the criminal is admissible without regard to positiveness, the lack of positiveness going only to the weight of the evidence. For example, in Barber v. State, 191 Md. 555, 62 A.2d 616 (1948), Judge Henderson said for the Court:
"The appellant contends that the piece of cloth found in the automobile owned by his father was
improperly admitted in evidence. But we have held that 'a lack of positive identification of an instrument of crime affects the weight of the evidence rather than its admissibility.' Wilson v. State, 181 Md. 1, 5, 26 A.2d 770, 773. See also Shanks v. State, 185 Md. 437, 447, 45 A.2d 85, 163 A. L. R. 931, and Smith v. State, 182 Md. 176, 184, 32 A.2d 863." Id. at 566-67.
Similarly in Daniels v. State, 213 Md. 90, 131 A.2d 267 (1957), the Court said:
"We repeat what we previously said that if there is a probability that there is a connection between the evidence and the crime, it is admissible, and the extent of its connection is a matter for the determination of the jury. 'The real test of admissibility is the connection of the fact proved with the offense charged, as evidence which has a natural tendency to establish the fact at issue should be admitted.' Hitzelberger v. State, 174 Md. 152, 161, 197 A. 605, 609." Id. at 103.
Daniels was cited in Hursey, Jr. v. State, 233 Md. 243, 244, 196 A.2d 472 (1964), in upholding an in-court identification by a witness who had been unable to identify the defendant at the police lineup. See also Parker v. State, 189 Md. 244, 247, 55 A.2d 784 (1947), noting that evidence as to possible cause is permitted.
In Nixon v. State, 204 Md. 475, 105 A.2d 243 (1954), the defendant claimed that he had been attacked by the victim, who allegedly had beaten him with a "waxer handle" -- apparently the handle of a mop-like wax applicator. The Court said:
"However, the trial court definitely ruled out a proffer of testimony by Dr. Charles Baker, a biochemist and micro-biologist employed by Penniman and Brown, chemists, to the effect that an examination of the waxer handle revealed that there was on the handle waxy material in which was embedded red fibers, identical with the fibers of the
appellant's red shirt, and there was waxy material embedded in the fabric of the shirt. In short, the proffer was to prove by scientific analysis that the handle and the shirt had come into contact, and by inference that Lassiter had struck Nixon with the handle." Id. at 480.
The Court did not discuss the reliability of scientific fiber analysis, the main objection being a lack of an adequate chain of custody. However, in holding the exclusion to be reversible error, the Court
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 Maryland DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|