Opinion ID: 2329522
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Evidentiary Sufficiency and Rulings

Text: Finally, appellants contend that the evidence presented by the County at trial below was insufficient to support the issuance of an injunction. In our opinion, the County did meet its burden of proof and the findings of the trial court were supported by the evidence and most certainly were not clearly erroneous. See Md. Rule 886. The evidence indicates, as the trial court found, that the activity taking place at the subject premises for a considerable period of time was activity which would be described as prostitution. Two witnesses for the County testified that they entered J.J.'s Photo Studio for the (sole) purpose of seeking some sort of sexual gratification. Upon entering the establishment, they were greeted by its employees and were asked to choose a girl. After making a selection and paying an amount of money for a session room, another payment of money was made to the girl for the type of session requested. Ultimately, a variety of sexual relations were engaged in, according to the testimony. It was stipulated by the parties that another witness would have testified that he went to the subject establishment and paid money for sexual gratification. Detective Clifford Mack of the Prince George's County Police Department testified that, in the course of the ongoing investigation of the Photo Studio, he entered the premises and discovered a partially clothed male and female in a session room. Additionally, he observed another female employee in a different room only partially clothed. No photographic equipment was found on the premises. However, numerous types of sexual devices were found in various rooms throughout the premises. Testimony from Dr. Nigel Jackman, Director of Community Health Services for Prince George's General Hospital, indicated that prostitutes have a higher incidence of sexually transmitted diseases than non-prostitutes; that a health hazard would exist if one considers what would occur should one contract and communicate such diseases. Finally, appellant McCollum, when called as a witness by the County, invoked her privilege against self-incrimination. (See our discussion, supra ). As previously noted, though there is no indication that the trial court based its conclusions on the drawing of an adverse inference from McCollum's invocation of her privilege, the drawing of such an inference would have been permissible as long as it was not the sole basis for the trial court's conclusions. It is clear that such was not the case. In sum, the evidence before the trial court was sufficient to support issuance of the injunction. Md. Rule 886. Appellants argue that the trial court erroneously admitted into evidence testimony regarding the arrests of certain appellants, photographs of the subject premises, and professional articles investigating and discussing sexually transmitted diseases. Further, counsel contends that he was refused the opportunity to fully cross-examine one of the County's witnesses as to that witness's relationship with the County during its investigation. As to appellants' contention that the trial judge erred in several respects in regard to certain proffered evidence and the admission of other evidence, we have examined the record and find no reversible error. The admissibility of evidence is largely a matter for the use of discretion by a trial judge. See, e.g., Sanner v. Guard, 236 Md. 271, 203 A.2d 885 (1964); Schear v. Motel M'gt. Corp. of America, 61 Md. App. 670, 487 A.2d 1240 (1985). We find no such abuse here. JUDGMENTS AFFIRMED. COSTS TO BE PAID BY APPELLANTS.