Maryland case law › Floyd v. State

Floyd v. State

11 Md. App. 683 (1971) · Maryland Court of Special Appeals
Maryland Court of Special AppealsDisposition: AffirmedThompson, J.✓ Good law
HoldingWillie James Floyd, Jr., was convicted by a Prince George's County jury of control of heroin and possession of narcotic implements and sentenced to two consecutive two-year terms.

Thompson, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Willie James Floyd, Jr., the appellant, was convicted of control of heroin and possession of narcotic implements in a jury trial in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County. Judge Samuel J. DeBlasis imposed a two year sentence on each conviction to run consecutively. The facts are undisputed.

On June 3, 1969, at approximately 12:40 A.M., Officer Ernest Beall of the Prince George’s County Police Department saw an automobile of the same make, year, color, and number of occupants as an automobile which had been reportedly involved in an armed robbery in the vicinity. As the officer approached the car, one of the occupants threw a gun from the right window of the car; two occupants fled into the District of Columbia and escaped apprehension. The driver of the car and the appellant were taken from the front seat of the car and placed under arrest. Several implements adapted to use in injecting narcotics were discovered in the front floor of the car, along with three bottle caps, upon which were found by chemical analysis, traces of heroin.

The other implements were negative for such traces. I Motion for Mistrial On cross-examination of Detective John J. Rossi, an officer experienced in narcotics matters, the following occurred: “Q. So your only function in this case was to collect the paraphernalia that you have right there and put it in the envelopes, seal it and take it to Mr. Feeny? “A. And advise the defendant of his rights and transport him to the station. “Q. He didn’t make any statements to you inculpating himself, did he? “A. At that time he appeared to be in need of a fix. 685 “Q. I didn’t ask you that. I said, did he make any statements inculpating himself? “A. No, sir.” After the conclusion of the testimony in the case and the denial of motions to acquit, the appellant moved for a mistrial based upon the detective’s remark about the fix. There was no objection to the evidence; there was no request that the remark be

This is a preview of Floyd v. State. About 50% of the opinion remains. Read the complete opinion in RecordCite.