Thompson v. Warden
This text of 120 A.2d 200 (Thompson v. Warden) 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.
Opinion
THOMPSON
v.
WARDEN OF MARYLAND HOUSE OF CORRECTION
Court of Appeals of Maryland.
*629 Before BRUNE, C.J., and DELAPLAINE, COLLINS, HENDERSON and HAMMOND, JJ.
HAMMOND, J., delivered the opinion of the Court.
In this application for leave to appeal from the denial of the writ of habeas corpus, petitioner, who was found not guilty of larceny but guilty of receiving stolen goods, and sentenced to five years in the House of Correction, contends that it was error to admit the testimony of the wife of his accomplice, on the ground that she was in fact also an accomplice. He complains generally of the inadmissibility of other evidence which helped to convict him. We have held repeatedly that attacks on the competency, admissibility or sufficiency of the evidence cannot serve as the basis for the writ of habeas corpus. Canter v. Warden, 207 Md. 616; Smith v. Warden, 207 Md. 628; Medley v. Warden, 207 Md. 634; Cummings v. Warden, 206 Md. 637; Stokes v. Warden, 205 Md. 629.
Application denied, with costs.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
120 A.2d 200, 209 Md. 628, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thompson-v-warden-md-2001.