Maryland Prince George County Manslaughter Automobile Reckless Negligent Driving Lawyers Attorneys
James Curtis BROWN v. STATE of Maryland
Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
October 3, 1988
Brown testified that the accident occurred as he was driving home from a party at a speed of about 35 miles per hour. He said that he had been at the party between the hours of 1 a.m. and approximately 4:30 a.m., during which time he had ingested 6 ounces or less of vodka. Brown stated that he saw Dudding's vehicle approaching, and, as Dudding's vehicle neared, it veered into Brown's lane of traffic.
Brown related that he slammed on the brakes, turned to the right, and went into a skid, which culminated in the fatal crash.. As a result of a head-on collision between a van driven by James Curtis Brown and a vehicle driven by Robert Dudding, the former was severely injured and the latter was killed. A jury in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County convicted Brown of manslaughter by automobile, reckless driving, negligent driving, driving while under the influence of alcohol, driving left of the center line, driving while license issued by another state is revoked and unlawful possession of a vehicle, knowing that the vehicle identification number (VIN) has been removed. As a result of those convictions, Brown was sentenced to five years imprisonment with two years suspended. He was ordered to be placed on five years supervised probation when he was released from prison.
Whether the trial judge erred in admitting evidence of two prior convictions for driving while intoxicated?
Whether the trial court erred in allowing going to the jury the charge of possession of a vehicle, knowing that its vehicle identification number had been removed.
The Court held that the convictions were improperly used for impeachment purposes, despite the representation that they would not be so utilized. The trial judge's instructions to the contrary did not cure the impermissible use. Drunken driving convictions are not within the categories of those convictions that are admissible for the purpose of impeaching the credibility of a witness. The trial court should be mindful, when inquiring into the defendant's criminal history, that there is more than mere credibility being attacked. Even assuming, arguendo, that Brown's prior drunk driving convictions were of the type admissible for impeachment purposes, the dangerous potential for misuse by the jury was accentuated by the State's use of those convictions to attack not only Brown's credibility but also that of his wife. A witness's credibility may be assailed by proof of his or her own prior convictions, not those of the convictions of the person as to whose reputation the witness is testifying. There was nothing in Mrs. Brown's direct testimony that suggested a need to challenge her credibility by questioning her concerning her husband's prior convictions. The court found that defendant's prior drunk driving convictions had no probative value as to manslaughter by automobile because willfulness was not an element of the crime and that any probative value was outweighed by the prejudicial effect of the evidence. The court held that drunk driving convictions were not within the categories of convictions that were admissible to impeach a witness's credibility and that the wife's credibility could only be assailed by proof of her own prior convictions
2) Whether the trial court erred in allowing going to the jury the charge of possession of a vehicle, knowing that its vehicle identification number had been removed?
The court finds that Brown's explanation as to the lack of a VIN in his vehicle was that he had had a new engine installed and the interior of the vehicle remodeled. He suggested that the VIN was removed by the person remodeling the interior of the van. He professed lack of knowledge as to the removal of the VIN. If the jury believed Brown, it might well have acquitted him. We are unable to say that the State's introduction of Brown's prior convictions did not lead to the jury's disbelief of Brown's explanation, and, therefore, we are unable to subscribe to the State's theory that there was "no spill over" into the non-driving offenses. Because we are unable to conclude that the impermissible use of prior convictions did not affect the conviction, we shall also reverse it.
Conclusion:
The court reversed defendant's convictions for manslaughter by automobile, reckless driving; negligent driving; driving while under the influence of alcohol; driving left of the center line; driving while license issued by another state was revoked; and unlawful possession of a vehicle, knowing the vehicle identification number (VIN) had been removed. The court remanded the case for a new trial and ordered the county to pay the costs.
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm's unofficial views of the Justices' opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content
Maryland Prince George County Manslaughter Automobile Reckless Negligent Driving Lawyers Attorneys
By: Atchuthan Sriskandarajah Why Apply For Car Insurance? If you have an Injury Contact an Injury Attorney Palm Beach Lower Down Your Car Insurance Bill Having your Changed Car Covered by Insurance Tips For Getting Approved For Student Auto Financing Automotive Lift Status And Select Precautions Get The Best Car Insurance - 5 Points To Consider Virginia Drivers Get Affordable Automobile Insurance Online Learn How To Lower Your Texas Auto Insurance Rate How To Find Cheap Auto Insurance Online Automotive Industry How to Find the Best Auto Insurance Rates Online Auto Traffiv Avalanche Review And Bonus