Moxley v. State, 205 Md. 507

Summary

The Maryland Court of Appeals held that the trial judge erred by striking testimony describing the assailant, because the State had elicited the testimony and the defense had not objected when it was admitted. The court concluded that the error was prejudicial in light of the disputed identification evidence and reversed the judgment, ordering a new trial.

Holdings

1. The trial judge erred by striking the description testimony because the State introduced it without objection, the defense did not object to that testimony when offered, and the State could waive any hearsay objection.
2. The exclusion was prejudicial error because identity was the primary issue and the excluded description materially differed from the defendant's physical characteristics.
3. A prior contradictory statement may be used to impeach a witness only after a foundation is laid by identifying the person to whom the statement was made and the time and place of the statement.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial judge erred by striking testimony describing the assailant after the State had introduced the testimony without a timely objection.
2. Whether the exclusion of that testimony was prejudicial and required reversal and a new trial.
3. Whether a witness may be impeached with a prior contradictory statement when the cross-examiner has not identified the person, time, and place of the alleged statement.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded