Hoffman v. State

Fowler, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The traverser, was indicted in the Criminal Court of Baltimore City for feloniously stealing five hundred and sixty dollars, the money and property of Michael J. Ward. He was tried before a jury and convicted. At the trial the traverser took two exceptions to the refusal of the Conrt to allow him to ask one of his witnesses certain questions.

After the State had offered evidence tending to prove that the traverser had stolen the money mentioned in the indictment, he asked the following question of a witness ³⁸⁹ called on his behalf: “Do you know the general reputation of Ward, the prosecuting witness ?” To which the witness answered, he did. He was then asked what was Ward’s general reputation for getting drunk and afterwards accusing people of stealing money and articles of value from him ? To this last question the State objected, and its objection was sustained. This ruling constitutes the first exception.

The traverser then offered to prove by competent witnesses that the general reputation of Ward, the prosecuting witness, in the community in which he lived, was that of a man who frequently got drunk, and that on recovering from sprees, he accused different persons of robbing him. The State’s objection to this question was also sustained, and the traverser took his second exception. The verdict being against him he has appealed. Upon an examination of the record we find nothing in it to show that Ward, whose reputation for veracity it was intended to impeach, had testified in the case.

Certainly there is nothing to show that he testified that the traverser had stolen his money. It follows, therefore, that he could not be impeached,