Opinion ID: 2317473
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: assistance of the trial judge in presentation of evidence

Text: Gilmore complains of two instances. When the State had completed its examination of Detective Powell the trial judge suggested to the prosecuting attorney, If you have any other questions that you want to examine him about, now is the time to do it. No further questions were asked, but the judge then proceeded to question Powell relative to a ring received for identification and directed the assistant state's attorney to exhibit the ring to the witness for possible identification, despite objections by Gilmore. Immediately prior to the closing of its case by the State the court pointed out that there were some items of property that had been referred to in evidence that had only been marked for identification. The judge then asked whether any steps were being taken to establish their introduction and was advised there were not. It was immediately after this that the State rested and Gilmore moved for a directed verdict of acquittal. The following morning, as has been previously noted, the case was reopened and the wedding band admitted into evidence. Gilmore says: Conceding that the trial court is permitted to clarify facts by questioning witnesses, Appellant urges that in both instances the trial court exceeded its discretionary authority by actually developing the manner of presentation of evidence for the Appellee. In Bartholomey v. State, 260 Md. 504, 273 A.2d 164 (1971), basically the same point was considered by this Court. Defense counsel in that case had objected in one instance to the trial court's educating the prosecution. We there rejected the contentions of the defendant upon the strength of Madison v. State, 200 Md. 1, 12, 87 A.2d 593 (1952); Jefferies v. State, 5 Md. App. 630, 632, 633, 248 A.2d 807 (1969); and Plank v. Summers, 203 Md. 552, 554, 555, 102 A.2d 262 (1954). Bartholomey is authority for rejection of the contention here.