CRIMINAL LAW — Unlawful Possession Of Marijuana — State, Not Confined In Its Proof To Date In Indictment — Testimony Of Accomplices Found Corroborated. In the instant prosecution for unlawful possession of marijuana, it was held that the State was not confined in its proof to the date alleged in the indictment. A contention of the defendant that testimony of his two accomplices was uncorroborated was held to be without merit because his own testimony, his admissions to police officers and additional evidence corroborated his alleged accomplices and were sufficient to support the jury's verdict. pp. 531-532
Decided December 7, 1960.
PER CURIAM.
The appellant was tried and convicted of possession of marijuana in violation of the Code (1957), Article 27, § 277, by a judge and jury in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County.
The indictment charged the possession as having been on August 3, 1959. The appellant makes two contentions: that the State failed to establish possession on August 3, 1959; and that the testimony of his two accomplices, one of whom was granted immunity, was not corroborated. Neither contention is substantial. The State was not confined in its proof to the date alleged in the indictment. Yanch v. State, 201 Md. 296, 93 A.2d 749; Mazer v. State, 212 Md. 60, 67, 127 A.2d 630; and cases therein cited. The appellant's own testimony at the trial, his admissions to the police officers and the additional evidence adduced by the State amply corroborated his alleged accomplices (for the purposes of this case, we assume, without deciding, that the witnesses Jay and Betty Kaiser were accomplices of the appellant), and were sufficient to support the verdict of the jury. Cf. Peachie v. State, 203 Md. 239, 100 A.2d 1.
Judgment affirmed, appellant to pay the costs.