Brown v. State, 213
| Decision Date | 18 April 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 213,213 |
| Citation | 222 Md. 312,160 A.2d 95 |
| Parties | Calvin BROWN v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
C. Oliver Goldsmith, Baltimore, for appellant.
Clayton A. Dietrich, Asst. Atty. Gen., Baltimore (C. Ferdinand Sybert, Atty. Gen., Saul A. Harris, State's Atty. for Baltimore City, Julius A. Romano, Asst. State's Atty. for Baltimore City, Baltimore) on the brief, for appellee.
Before BRUNE, C. J., and HENDERSON, HAMMOND, PRESCOTT and HORNEY, JJ.
Calvin Brown appeals from his conviction and sentence on a charge of assault with intent to rob. He challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his conviction, and attacks the credibility of the testimony of the victim of the attack, one Dargan, who identified Brown as one of two men who attacked him. Able counsel appointed to represent Brown on this appeal has strongly questioned the victim's ability to identify Brown as the man who 'yoked' him from behind, though the victim was unable to identify another suspect wearing a red sweater, as the man who attacked him from the front. Dargan had described one of his assailants as wearing a red sweater.
The case was tried before Judge Allen, sitting without a jury. The credibility of the witness and the sufficiency of the identification were matters for the determination of the trial judge. Johnson v. State, 221 Md. 177, 156 A.2d 441. The evidence, if believed, was ample to warrant conviction. We could not reverse the conviction on a question of evidence unless it were clearly erroneous. Maryland Rules, Rule 741 c. Ward v. State, 219 Md. 559, 150 A.2d 257. We do not find that it was.
We were informed at the argument that Dargan is now also an inmate of the same prison as Brown. A letter which he has recently written suggesting a mistake in his identification of Brown, but denying any perjury in connection therewith, is not properly before us.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Britton v. State of Maryland
...of fact. See, e.g., Bailey v. State, 226 Md. 353, 173 A.2d 732 (1961); Booth v. State, 225 Md. 71, 169 A.2d 388 (1960); Brown v. State, 222 Md. 312, 160 A.2d 95 (1960); Hutchinson v. State, 1 Md.App. 362, 367, 230 A.2d 352 5 After this opinion was filed, the Attorney General of Maryland not......
-
Johnson v. State
...17. The credibility of the witnesses is, of course, for the trier of facts to determine--in this instance the trial judge. Brown v. State, 222 Md. 312, 160 A.2d 95. Judgment ...
-
Booker v. State
...a single eyewitness, if believed, is sufficient to support a conviction. Booth v. State, 1961, 225 Md. 71, 169 A.2d 388; Brown v. State, 1960, 222 Md. 312, 160 A.2d 95. The argument that the identification was not corroborated is without merit. Unlike the testimony of an accomplice, the tes......
-
Dunn v. State, 2
...the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, this Court need not be so convinced in order to sustain the conviction. Brown v. State, 1960, 222 Md. 312, 160 A.2d 95; Doyal v. State, supra. In the instant case, we find no basis upon which to conclude that the decision of the trial court w......