Ford v. State

Per Curiam. The Appellant, Thelma Louise Ford, was convicted of assault with intent to murder her husband, by Judge J. Gilbert Prendergast, sitting without a jury, in the Criminal Court of Balti ¹⁷⁷ more and after a Motion for a New Trial had been denied, sentenced to serve not more than six years in the Maryland Correctional Institution for Women. The husband testified that early in the evening of May 5, 1966, he and his wife had an argument in their home over her former boyfriend. He then left the house and upon his return about 9 :00 P.M., she remonstrated with him concerning his accusations and, thereupon, picked up a gun from the top of a dresser and shot him twice—one bullet entering his left arm and one his neck.

He ran to the front door and when it would not open, he broke a window pane and jumped out into the str eet. The wife testified that when her husband returned to the house at 9:00 P.M. he started arguing about the former boyfriend again, began beating her, tore her nightgown, then pulled out a gun and threatened to kill her and the children. She managed to wrestle the gun from him and even though she shot him he continued to beat her whereupon she laid the gun on the dresser and ran out the back door. The police arrived about 9:30 P.M., saw the husband lying on the sidewalk in a pool of blood; saw the broken window and then entered the house.

The Appellant, who was described by a police officer as crying, upset and wearing a nightgown which was torn, told him that she had shot her husband and showed him the gun on the dresser. The officer observed a trail of blood leading from the bedroom to the front door, then over a sofa and out through the broken window to the street where the husband was lying. The officer testified that the Appellant’s mother arrived shortly after he got there. He was asked on cross examination by Appellant’s counsel what the Appellant had told her mother about the shooting in his presence.

The trial court ruled that such a statement by the Appellant was not a part of the res gestae, and, therefore, not admissible. In this appeal, it is contended that the trial court erred in not permitting this testimony. In Reckard v. State, 2 Md. App. 312 , this Court stated (at p. 316): “* * * Whether a declaration is a part of the res gestae depends