Jenkins v. State

Briscoe, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This is an indictment in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, for assault with intent to kill. The traverser was convicted and sentenced to an imprisonment of five years in ⁷⁴ the penitentiary. At the trial he reserved two bills of exceptions to the rulings of the Court upon the admissibility of testimony and these form the basis of this appeal. • In the first bill of exception, it is stated that the traverser after having proved that Smith, the party upon whom the assault was made, was a dangerous man and had been tried and convicted on several occasions of various offenses, asked him on cross-examination, “ if he had not within the last year leveled his gun on Mr. Wm.

Barlow Vincent with the intention of shooting him,” offering at the time to follow it up by showing that the traverser at the time of the shooting had knowledge of Smith’s act. The alleged purpose being to show to the jury that the traverser knew that he was dealing with a dangerous man, who had the day previous drawn his revolver upon him and threatened to kill him. This proposed testimony was entirely irrelevant and was properly excluded by the Court. The witness was not bound to answer the question put to him, because the answer manifestly tended to criminate himself.

But independent ot this, the fact that Smith, the prosecuting witness, had pointed a gun at a third party on a former occasion, would not justify the traverser for assaulting Smith. Nor would it tend to reduce the offence to a common assault or entitle the party to an acquittal. Specific acts of violence were not admissible. The general reputation of the party assaulted as a dangerous man had been introduced and was before the jury.

Gaither v. Blowers, 11 Md. 553 . The second exception of the appellant was to the refusal of the Court to allow the prisoner to give in evidence what he understood Smith, the prosecuting witness, to mean by the words, “ I have your age in my pocket,” in connection with his act of immediately placing his hand in his hip pocket the day before the shooting, while at the traverser’s brother’s house. The object of the question was stated -at the time to place in evidence before the jury, that the