HAMMOND, J., delivered the opinion of the Court.
The appellant was convicted of abortion. The testimony of the prosecuting witness as to pregnancy — an essential element of the offense, Code (1951) Art. 27, Sec. 3 — was somewhat vague, and to the State, evidently insufficient. At the first trial of the charge, the jury failed to agree. At the second trial the State sought to prove the pregnancy, as it had in the first, by the records of the Peninsula...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
