Walters v. State

Adkins, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Reginald E. Walters, the appellant, was a prohibition agent working under Hunter R. Stotler in the vicinity of Hagerstown, Maryland. Since the spring of 1927, Stotler, whose headquarters were in Cumberland, had stayed at the home of Walters in Hagerstown when at work in that section. Early Sunday morning, July 17th, Walters found his wife was not in their room and, suspecting that there had been illicit relations between her and Stotler, crept down stairs, found them together and accused them of having improper relations, which they both then denied.

Mrs. Walters testified that on the following Tuesday and Thursday she confessed to her husband that she had had illicit relations with Stotler and promised that she would never see him alone again; that some time between May and July 17th, she discussed with Stotler what her husband might do if he knew ²⁴² what had happened between them, “I said, what would you do if my husband came here or came near and caught us? He said, what would he do ? I said, we would both be killed if he had anything to kill us with. He said, well I suppose I can shoot as straight as he can, or at least his words meant that he could use the same means to kill, anyhow.

I think I told my husband what Mr. Stotler said.” The relations between Stotler and Walters were apparently friendly, even after this. On the evening of July 26th, Stotler with some other revenue officers came to Hagerstown and stopped at Walters’ home and made arrangements to spend that night there. About eight o’clock that evening Stotler and Walters started out together in Walters’ car. They first went to the home of a lady who had reported a still in operation in that neighborhood, and then continued up the mountain road in search of the still.

Later in the night Walters drove his car into Eunkstown, stating that Stotler had been shot and was dying. The explanation first given was that they had been fired upon from ambush. Walters subsequently admitted that he shot Stotler, but claimed it was in self defense. The verdict of the jury was guilty of murder in the first degree without capital punishment; on which defendant was sentenced by the court to imprisonment in the Maryland Penitentiary for the period of his natural life.

This appeal is from that judgment. There were fifteen exceptions to rulings on evidence and two to statements made by the court during the argument. The first exception was to permitting Mrs. Hunter' R. Stotler to state that the purpose of her husband’s visit to Hagerstown on July 26th was to investigate Mr. Walters. If that was merely hearsay testimony it should have been excluded.

We find no error in the rulings involved in the second, third, and fourth exceptions. The questions and answers related to a possible motive and were not objectionable. 30 C. J., p. 187; 13 R. C. L., p. 910; Frick v. State, 128 Md. 122 . ²⁴³ We are unable to understand on just what