Dorsey v. Warden of Maryland Penitentiary

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Dorsey v. Warden of Maryland Penitentiary

75 A.2d 774, 196 Md. 666, 1950 Md. LEXIS 452

CourtCourt of Appeals of Maryland

DecidedOctober 5, 1950

DocketNo. 11

StatusPublished

This text of 75 A.2d 774 (Dorsey v. Warden of Maryland Penitentiary) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Maryland primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dorsey v. Warden of Maryland Penitentiary, 75 A.2d 774, 196 Md. 666, 1950 Md. LEXIS 452 (Md. 1950).

Pincite

Opinion

Marbury, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is an application for leave to appeal from a decision of Judge Mason of the Supreme Bench of Baltimore City, denying the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.

The applicant makes four contentions: first, that the police oificer who arrested him testified incorrectly at his trial that he had a warrant for the applicant at the time he arrested him; second, that the same oificer testified that the warrant had been sworn out before a magistrate a week before applicant’s apprehension, but that it was 126 hours before applicant was given a hearing before the magistrate; third, that the testimony of a witness was requested but the prosecuting attorney’s procedure prevented him from getting his witness; and fourth, that the principal state’s witness at the magistrate’s hearing did not appear at the trial.

Habeas corpus cannot be used to attack incorrect testimony or the failure of a state’s witness to appear. The applicant does not state that he asked the court to summon his missing witness, and it does not appear from the record what the procedure of the state’s attorney was which prevented him from getting his witness. Under these circumstances we are unable to find that there was any denial of due process.

Application denied without costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Marbury, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is an application for leave to appeal from a decision of Judge Mason of the Supreme Bench of Baltimore City, denying the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.

The applicant makes four contentions: first, that the police oificer who arrested him testified incorrectly at his trial that he had a warrant for the applicant at the time he arrested him; second, that the same oificer testified that the warrant had been sworn out before a magistrate a week before applicant’s apprehension, but that it was 126 hours before applicant was given a hearing before the magistrate; third, that the testimony of a witness was requested but the prosecuting attorney’s procedure prevented him from getting his witness; and fourth, that the principal state’s witness at the magistrate’s hearing did not appear at the trial.

Habeas corpus cannot be used to attack incorrect testimony or the failure of a state’s witness to appear. The applicant does not state that he asked the court to summon his missing witness, and it does not appear from the record what the procedure of the state’s attorney was which prevented him from getting his witness. Under these circumstances we are unable to find that there was any denial of due process.

Application denied without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

75 A.2d 774, 196 Md. 666, 1950 Md. LEXIS 452, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dorsey-v-warden-of-maryland-penitentiary-md-1950.