Opinion

Wentz v. State

  • 159 Md. 161
  • 150 A. 278
  • 1930 Md. LEXIS 99
Court
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Filed
May 15, 1930
Status
Published
Author
Bond
On the bench
Bond, Tteneb, Oebutt, Digges, Paeke, Sloan
Cited by
56 cases

The opinion

*167

Bond, C. J.,

filed the following dissenting opinion:

As tfie charge is one of abnormality, and a jury would find it peculiarly difficult to accept testimony of tfie crime without having it shown them tfiat tfie accused possessed tfiat abnormal constitution, I think evidence of tfie other daughter, of debauching her, too, fias a special value and importance tfiat require its admission. It seems to me tfiat its exclusion carries tfie rule regarding evidence of other crimes to an extent and a consequence not reasonable. Any great difference between tfie times of commission of acts upon the one daughter and tfie other might require exclusion, but tfie decision is not concerned with tfie element of time.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.