Cousins v. State

Hammond, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Appellant tells us that his conviction for receiving stolen goods should be set aside because there was received in evidence to his prejudice the facts that he had been convicted of murder and robbery in 1921 and of larceny in 1934, and be ⁴ cause the evidence was insufficient to permit the trial judge, hearing the case without a jury, properly to find guilt. We find that both claims must be rejected. Appellant, over the objection of his counsel that the prior convictions had no bearing “on the crime in question now,” testified on cross-examination that he had been convicted in 1921 of murder and robbery and had served a number of years of his sentence, and that soon after his release had been convicted of larceny in 1934.

In overruling the objections Judge Manley explained that “* * * it helps me determine, if he has been convicted previously, whether I want to believe - him or not,” and that the only purpose of the questions- as- to earlier convictions was “to reflect on his credibility as a witness” and that “it has nothing to do with his guilt or innocence.” Appellant now argues that the previous convictions were too remote in time and that in admitting them the trial judge abused his discretion and was materially influenced by his knowledge of them in finding a verdict of guilty. Code (1957), Art. 35, Sec. 10, provides that “In all cases it shall be competent for any of the parties to the proceedings to prove * * * the conviction of such witness of any infamous crime.” No limit on the time of such conviction is set by the statute. Murder, robbery and larceny are all infamous crimes in Maryland. State v. Bixler, 62 Md. 354 ; Garitee v. Bond, 102 Md. 379 .

It has been held by this Court that evidence of the accused’s previous conviction of crime need not be restricted to infamous crimes or those involving moral turpitude, provided the violation of law may have some tendency to show that the person charged is not to be believed under oath. Taylor v. State, 226 Md. 561 ; Linkins v. State, 202 Md. 212 . In such instances the exercise of discretion by the trial judge will not be interfered with on appeal unless the fact of the prior conviction is clearly irrelevant. Nelson v. Seiler, 154 Md. 63, 69 .

Where the conviction was for a crime not infamous, the length of time since it occurred considered with the nature of the crime has been deemed pertinent in deciding relevancy. Burgess v. State, 161 Md. 162, 170 , et seq.; Simond v. State, 127 Md. 29, 39 . We think that where the prior conviction was for an infamous ⁵ crime, evidence of it is admissible without