Dunlap v. State
| Decision Date | 26 June 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 194,194 |
| Parties | Jessie J. DUNLAP v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Benjamin L. Brown, Baltimore, for appellant.
Dickee Howard, Asst. Atty. Gen., Francis B. Burch, Atty. Gen., James R. Klein, Asst. Atty. Gen., Charles E. Moyland, Jr., State's Atty. for Baltimore City, James F. Garrity, Asst. State's Atty. for Baltimore City, Baltimore, on brief, for appellee.
Before ANDERSON, MORTON, ORTH, and THOMPSON, JJ., and GEORGE L. RUSSELL, Jr., Special Judge.
Appellant was convicted by the court sitting without a jury of attempted robbery with a dangerous and deadly weapon and assault. Sentenced to ten years imprisonment, appellant contends on this appeal that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction.
The evidence adduced at the trial showed that on February 19, 1966, at approximately 11:15 a. m., Edward Mintz, a cab driver, picked up appellant who asked to go to the 1700 block of Lexington Street. Upon arrival there, Mintz stopped his cab at which time appellant said 'This is it, holdup,' simultaneously brandishing a gun. Mintz jumped on appellant and wrestled the gun from his hand. The police then arrived on the scene and arrest appellant.
Appellant testified that he had been drinking at the time of the incident; that he lived at 1732 W. Lexington Street; that upon arriving in the 1700 block of Lexington Street and seeing his house, he told the driver 'Hold it, this is it.' Appellant testified that he reached into his pocket to get his change and found it necessary to remove his pistol from his pocket to do so; and that Mintz attacked him under these circumstances.
The test of the sufficiency of the evidence in a case tried before the court without a jury, when reviewed in this court, is whether the evidence, if believed, either shows directly or supports a rational inference of the facts to be proved, from which the court could fairly be convinced, beyond a reasonable doubt, of defendant's guilt of the offense charged. Levin v. State, 1 Md.App. 139, 228 A.2d 487; O'Brien v. State, 1 Md.App. 94, 227 A.2d 362; Hutchinson v. State, 1 Md.App. 362, 230 A.2d 352. We have no difficulty in concluding that there was relevant evidence adduced at the trial which would properly sustain a finding of appellant's guilt. The weight of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses are matters for the trier of facts to determine. The trial judge was, of course, under no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brooks v. State
...testimony of the defendant. Willis v. State, 2 Md.App. 662, 665, 236 A.2d 430 (1968); Lucas v. State, supra, 593; Dunlap v. State, 1 Md.App. 444, 447, 230 A.2d 690, 691 (1967). In the instant case, the appellant admitted shooting the deceased, but protested his innocence upon the theory of ......
-
Bailey v. State
...of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses were for the trial judge. Weaver v. State, 226 Md. 431, 174 A.2d 76; Dunlap v. State, 1 Md.App. 444, 230 A.2d 690. Miss Berkshire, Malcuit and Shank all testified in elaborate detail to the entire three and one-half hour ride, culminating......
-
Chesley v. State
...472, 235 A.2d 307. The weight of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses was for the trial judge to determine. Dunlap v. State, 1 Md.App. 444, 230 A.2d 690; Sadler v. State, 1 Md.App. 383, 230 A.2d 372. The judgments of the lower court on the evidence were not clearly erroneous an......
-
Butina v. State
...227 A.2d 761. The jury was under no obligation to believe the denial. See Sanders v. State, 2 Md.App. 484, 235 A.2d 563; Dunlap v. State, 1 Md.App. 444, 230 A.2d 690.6 However during his testimony at the preliminary hearing he said that no charges were placed against him at that time, that ......