Case ID: md_152/html/0093-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Adkins, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

SYLVESTER L. V. YOUNG v. STATE OF MARYLAND.
    
      Criminal Law — Review on Appeal.
    
    That the jurors were in the court room when a previous case against defendant of similar character was tried, and heard objectionable testimony in that case, and convicted defendant on such testimony, improperly admitted in'the previous ease, and not offered in the later case, does not present a question cognizable by the Court of Appeals.
    
      Decided January 13th, 1927.
    
    Appeal from the Circuit Court for Allegany County (Wagamaw and Dottb, JL).
    Criminal proceeding* against Sylvester L. V. Young. Erom a judgment of conviction, he appeals.
    Affirmed.
    The cause was argued before Bond, C. J., Urner, Adkins, Offutt, and Parke, JJ.
    
      Omer T. Kaylor and Saul Praeger, for the appellant.
    
      Herbert Levy, Assistant Attorney General, with whom were Thomas H. Robinson, Attorney General, and Ellworth R. Roulette, State’s Attorney for Washington County, for the State.
   Adkins, J.,

delivered, the opinion of the Court.

This appeal was argued with No. 67. It is from a judgment against the same defendant, Sylvester L. Y. Young, on an indictment for embezzlement arising out of a similar transaction as that involved in the former case.

There is no error pointed out by appellant in his brief in any of the rulings of the trial court; and in his oral argument counsel for appellant admitted there was no particular merit in the exceptions in this record. His complaint was that the jurors who tried this case were in the court room when the previous case was tried, and heard the objectionable testimony in that case, which was not offered in the present case, and convicted the appellant on the testimony which was improperly admitted in the other case. This does not present a question which is cognizable by this Court.

Finding no error in the rulings appealed from, the judgment must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.