Davis v. State
| Decision Date | 05 April 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 194,194 |
| Citation | 168 A.2d 884,225 Md. 45 |
| Parties | Donald DAVIS and James J. C. Tiller, v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
George L. Russell, Jr., Baltimore (Benjamin L Brown and Brown, Allen & Watts, Baltimore, on the brief), for appellants.
William J. McCarthy, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Thomas B. Finan, Atty. Gen., Saul A. Harris, State's Atty., and Julius A. Romano, Asst. State's Atty., for Baltimore City, on the brief), for appellee.
Before BRUNE, C. J., and HENDERSON, HAMMOND, PRESCOTT and HORNEY, JJ.
Appellants, after their motions for directed verdicts were denied, were convicted by a jury of robbery with a dangerous or deadly weapon. They urge in this Court that the State did not show that the weapon used was 'either dangerous or deadly' and that it was prejudicial error to admit in evidence two bullets found in the pocket of one of the appellants.
The testimony was that two men wearing masks entered a drug store in Northwest Baltimore and took bills, checks and coin from the cash register at the point of a gun. The druggist said one of the men came around the counter 'and put a gun in my face.' The druggist's daughter saw only one man 'and he had a gun.' The record is replete with references to the gun and leaves no doubt that the druggist and his daughter were put in fear and coerced into delivering the stolen property by the threat of the use of the gun. The appellants were apprehended a few minutes after the robbery, near the scene. They fled when the police approached. Each had some of the stolen money on his person. Each admitted in a statement to the police acting as a lookout in the robbery but denied being in the store, claiming that two other men had gone in.
It is not necessary for the State, in order to make out a prima facie case of robbery with a dangerous or deadly weapon, to show that the gun used was loaded. Vincent v. State, 220 Md. 232, 236, 151 A.2d 898. It is enough if it is shown, as it was in the case before us, that the gun was employed in a threatening fashion. Hayes v. State, 211 Md. 111, 115, 126 A.2d 576. There was no suggestion at the trial of the case that the witnesses in testifying as to the use of a gun were not referring to an ordinary real gun. No point was made that the gun might have been a toy. We think it clear that since the appellants made no effort to rebut the prima facie proof that the weapon used in the robbery was dangerous or deadly, the jury properly could...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brooks v. State
...it was unnecessary for the State to establish that the pistol was loaded." Id. at 237-238, 151 A.2d at 902. In Davis v. State, 225 Md. 45, 46, 168 A.2d 884, 885 (1961), we again made reference to the subjective approach in noting that "[i]t is enough if it is shown ... that the gun was used......
-
Handy v. State
...testimony of the witnesses that the defendant sprayed pepper spray on the victim and then robbed him. We note that in Davis v. State, 225 Md. 45, 168 A.2d 884 (1961), the defendants argued that the State could not prove that the handgun they used was loaded, and thus deadly, during the robb......
-
Hobbs v. Pepersack
...the Court of Appeals of Maryland has held that a loaded gun may be a deadly weapon while an unloaded one may not. Davis v. State, 225 Md. 45, 168 A.2d 884 (1961). Also, a knife may be either a deadly weapon or only a dangerous one, depending on the size of the blade and manner of its use. S......
-
Hobbs v. Pepersack
...the Court of Appeals of Maryland has held that a loaded gun may be a deadly weapon while an unloaded one may not. Davis v. State, 225 Md. 45, 168 A.2d 884 (1961). Also, a knife may be either a deadly weapon or only a dangerous one, depending on the size of the blade and manner of its use. S......