Opinion ID: 2385421
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Corporal Lambdin

Text: Corporal Irvin J. Lambdin of the Maryland State Police had testified extensively in this proceeding. He was recalled because certain of the members of the Commission had some questions they wished answered. His earlier testimony was that the forgery was with a blue ink pen. Judge Bennett, according to the evidence, always used black ink. The transcript of that further testimony covers twenty-five pages. The only objection on behalf of Bennett to be found in any of those pages of the transcript came when Mr. Fisher on behalf of the Commission was well into his examination of Lambdin. The record reflects: Q. Now, looking at the exception report, the typing was in what kind of ink? A. That's the black ink. Q. And the signature? A. That appears to be a black or darker blue than was on the exception report. MR. GLENN: Objection. Mr. Fisher is trying to impeach his own witness. CHAIRMAN GILBERT: Overruled. In Von Lusch v. State, 279 Md. 255, 264, 368 A.2d 468, 473 (1977), we said, [W]here counsel clearly states specific grounds for an objection without a request by the trial court, he waives the right to challenge the evidence on other grounds.... The ordinary rules of evidence do not apply in a proceeding before the Judicial Disabilities Commission. In Diener, 268 Md. 659, 304 A.2d 587, Judge McWilliams said for the Court: [I]t suffices to say that the Commission, functioning as a fact-finding body, was not bound by strict rules of evidence, but only by the fundamental rules of fairness, Hyson v. Montgomery County Council, 242 Md. 55, 217 A.2d 578 (1966); Dal Maso v. Board of County Comm'rs of Prince George's County, 238 Md. 333, 209 A.2d 62 (1965). 268 Md. at 682, 304 A.2d at 599-600. All factors considered, we find no breach of the fundamental rules of fairness. Accordingly, we hold this contention to be without merit.