Mason v. State

Per Curiam. James Abraham Mason appeals from a judgment of conviction entered by'the Circuit Court for Montgomery County on a jury verdict of guilty of the possession and control of heroin in violation of Code (1957) Art. 27, Sec. 277. Mason was indicted jointly with Percy W. Lawson. Counsel was appointed for Mason; he pled not guilty, and was given a separate trial.

In his appeal, he contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to strike the testimony of the State’s expert wit-to proceed to question him and his chief witness as to their crimness, in denying a voir dire question and in allowing the State ⁷⁰⁹ inal records after his counsel was prevented from continuing to question them as to their records. Testimony at the trial revealed that Mason, while being pursued by police, threw a “brown package” underneath the automobile in which he was riding in the company of .Lawson and two other men. The contents of the package were examined by a qualified chemist. The chemist, called by the State, testified that his tests showed “traces of heroin, which is a derivative of opium.” Counsel for Mason moved to strike the testimony classifying the substance as heroin because, on cross-examination, the expert, after again stating that the test positively identified heroin, conceded that one of the substances revealed by the test could have been an opium alkaloid without narcotic effect.

Mason contends that the expert’s testimony should not have been admitted because it was inconsistent in that while the chemist testified heroin was present he conceded a non-narcotic could have been present. We find no inconsistency in the testimony. The presence of heroin does not exclude the possible presence of foreign matter. The testimony of the chemist permitted the inference, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the substance found in the package contained heroin.

Mazer v. State, 212 Md. 60, 66 , 127 A. 2d 630 (1956). The voir dire question denied by the trial court was whether any of the jurors had seen two articles in Life magazine concerning narcotics, and, if so, whether any jurors had formed a prejudice from the articles. Mason contends the question was proper; he also argues that, because the question was denied, the trial court should have propounded a question regarding prejudice. Article XXI of the Maryland Declaration of Rights guarantees a defendant the privilege of examining prospective jurors for the purpose of finding possible causes of