Summary
In Battee, we made the statement that "an accused does not show that he has been denied any constitutional right when a witness who has been subpoenaed is not present at the trial and the accused does not give any reason for the absence of the witness."
Summary of this case from Wilson v. StateOpinion
[H.C. No. 40, October Term, 1947.]
Decided June 16, 1948.
Habeas Corpus — Guilt or Innocence Not Retriable On — Writ of, Not Usable As An Appeal or To Review Evidence — Non-Appearance of Witnesses Unexplained Not Ground for Release On.
The question of guilt or innocence cannot be retried on habeas corpus. p. 752
The writ of habeas corpus cannot be used as an appeal or for the purpose of reviewing the evidence given in a criminal case. p. 752
Non-appearance of summoned witnesses without explanation of reason for absence by the accused is no ground for release on habeas corpus. p. 752
Decided June 16, 1948.
Habeas corpus proceedings by the State, on the relation of Royce P. Battee, against the Warden of the Maryland House of Correction, wherein the writ was denied. On application for leave to appeal.
Application denied.
Before MARBURY, C.J., DELAPLAINE, COLLINS, GRASON, HENDERSON, and MARKELL, JJ.
This is an application for leave to appeal from refusal of a writ of habeas corpus.
First, petitioner alleges that he was denied due process of law. He says that he was in Spring Grove State Hospital for observation and treatment from June 9 to June 23, 1947, and that on June 23 he was brought into Court, but Judge Sherbow remanded him to the hospital, where he remained until August 11. He then says that at the trial on October 14 Judge Sherbow ruled that he was sane both at the time of the crime and at the time of the trial. He contends that the judge showed prejudice because he remanded him to the hospital while he was under bond and contradicted himself by finding petitioner sane. It is clear from petitioner's own allegations that he was sent to the hospital for observation and treatment, and that the Court had not made any final decision on the subject. In any event, the question of guilt or innocense cannot be retried on habeas corpus.
Second, petitioner alleges that he asked for several witnesses, but they did not appear, and thus the Court did not have the benefit of their testimony as to his mental condition as a result of alcoholism. The Constitution does not guarantee the attendance of witnesses in criminal prosecution, and accordingly an accused does not show that he has been denied any constitutional right when a witness who has been summoned is not present at the trial and accused does not give any reason for the absence of the witness. Blount v. Wright, 189 Md. 294, 55 A.2d 709.
Third, petitioner alleges that the evidence at the trial did not show conclusive proof of his guilt, as there was merely weak circumstantial evidence. As we have said many times, the writ of habeas corpus cannot be used as an appeal or for the purpose of reviewing the evidence given in a criminal case. State, ex rel. Williams v. Warden of the Maryland Penitentiary, 190 Md. 762, 60 A.2d 186.
Application denied, without costs.