From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Toyer v. State

Court of Appeals of Maryland
Apr 7, 1964
199 A.2d 233 (Md. 1964)

Opinion

[No. 258, September Term, 1963.]

Decided April 7, 1964.

CRIMINAL LAW — Evidence Sufficient To Warrant Conviction For Sale Of Narcotics. Where defendant took money from a special employee of the Bureau of Narcotics in exchange for narcotics, later admitted having made the sale and acknowledged, at the trial, that he had enough experience with narcotics to know what he was doing, it was held that the evidence was sufficient to warrant his conviction for selling narcotics despite his contention he was a sub-agent of the special employee. p. 325

CRIMINAL LAW — Selling Narcotics — Failure Of State To Call Special Employee As Witness Did Not Amount To Denial Of Fair Trial. There was no merit to the defendant's contention that he was denied a fair trial in his prosecution for selling narcotics by reason of the State's failure to call as a witness the special employee to whom he sold the narcotics. The defendant not only knew the special employee but summoned him to appear; and neither demanded that he be called nor asked the State to explain its failure to call him. p. 325

T.G.B.

Decided April 7, 1964.

Appeal from the Criminal Court of Baltimore (HARLAN, J.).

William Toyer was convicted of selling narcotics and he appealed.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

The cause was argued before HENDERSON, HAMMOND, PRESCOTT, HORNEY and SYBERT, JJ.

John R. Hargrove for the appellant.

R. Randolph Victor, Assistant Attorney General, with whom were Thomas B. Finan, Attorney General, William J. O'Donnell, State's Attorney for Baltimore City, and Bernard L. Silbert, Assistant State's Attorney, on the brief, for the appellee.


Two questions are presented by this appeal. In one the appellant asserts that the evidence was legally insufficient to convict him of selling narcotics for the reason that he was a sub-agent of the special employee, but he seems to have overlooked the fact that he took money from the special employee in exchange for the narcotics, that after he was taken into custody he orally admitted having made the sale, and that at his trial he acknowledged having had enough experience with drugs to know what he was doing. This was enough to warrant his conviction. See Stewart v. State, 232 Md. 318; Knight v. State, 229 Md. 460; Whyte v. State, 229 Md. 459. By the second question it is contended that the appellant was deprived of a fair trial because the State did not call the special employee as a witness. This, too, is without merit. See McCoy v. State, 216 Md. 332. Not only did the appellant know the special employee, but it was he who had summoned him to appear in court. Moreover, no demand was made that the special employee be called, nor was the State asked to explain why it did not call him.

Judgment affirmed; the appellant to pay the costs.


Summaries of

Toyer v. State

Court of Appeals of Maryland
Apr 7, 1964
199 A.2d 233 (Md. 1964)
Case details for

Toyer v. State

Case Details

Full title:TOYER v . STATE

Court:Court of Appeals of Maryland

Date published: Apr 7, 1964

Citations

199 A.2d 233 (Md. 1964)
199 A.2d 233

Citing Cases

Lee v. State

The majority of the Supreme Court held the claim was not properly raised at the trial and thus would not be…

Cross v. State

We think the evidence was such as warranted conviction. See Toyer v. State, 234 Md. 324. Judgments…