Federal Nat. Bank Boston v. Oconnell

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 General Hospital in Salisbury where the victim had been treated after the abortion. At the time of her treatment, Dr. I. Rivers Hanson was in charge of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at the hospital. He brought with him to court the record of the hospital showing the admission and treatment of the victim, made in the regular course of business. It is conceded that Dr. Hanson never treated or even saw the patient and had no personal knowledge of her condition, as it is, the record showed that she had been attended by a Dr. Parham, who examined her after her admission on March 13, 1950, and performed an operation on her a few days later. Defense counsel moved to exclude "any testimony from Dr. Hanson based upon