Dyson v. State, 311
| Decision Date | 16 June 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 311,311 |
| Citation | 226 Md. 18,171 A.2d 505 |
| Parties | Jerome DYSON v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
William I. Gosnell, Baltimore, for appellant.
Robert C. Murphy, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Thomas B. Finan, Atty. Gen., Saul A. Harris, State's Atty., and John W. Sause, Jr., Asst. State's Atty., for Baltimore City, Baltimore, on the brief), for appellee.
Before BRUNE, C. J., and HENDERSON, PRESCOTT, HORNEY and MARBURY, JJ.
The appellant Jerome Dyson, together with Gordon Gaskins and William Shird, was jointly charged in the Criminal Court of Baltimore City on three multi-count indictments, viz. (a) indictment No. 1655, robbery with a deadly weapon of Samuel Black, (b) No. 1656, robbery with a deadly weapon of Lee Schroeder, and (c) No. 1657, attempt to rob with a deadly weapon Gertrude Black. These charges were respectively made in the first count of each of the indictments. Appellant was tried separately by the court without a jury, found guilty on the first count in each indictment and sentenced in each case. He appeals from the judgments and sentences imposed. His basic contention in each case is that there was insufficient evidence to sustain a conviction because of the lack of positive identification of the appellant.
In the case involving the robbery of Samuel Black (No. 1655), who with his sister, Gertrude Black, operated the Eagle Coal Company, two eye witnesses to the robbery, Mr. Black and his sister, did not identify the appellant at the police line-up or at the preliminary hearing. While it is true that Mr. Black could not identify the appellant--he testified one of the men 'was behind the partition and I could not see him very well'--his sister, Gertrude Black, present at the time of the robbery, did identify appellant at the trial. She testified at the trial that she recognized him at the preliminary hearing but was not asked to identify him. There was evidence that the appellant was seen running from the scene of the crime shortly after its occurrence, being pursued by a policeman, during which time he was seen to have discarded a loaded gun beneath a car, then running into a garage from which he sought to effect his escape from police by jumping out of the garage window, and continuing his flight by running in and out of several strange houses. Recovery by police of the fruits of the robbery from the garage and from the house in which the appellant was subsequently trapped and their identification by Mr. Black established his connection with and participation in the crime.
In non-jury cases, such as this, involving the sufficiency of the evidence, our review is confined to a determination of whether the evidence, including the proper inferences therefrom, is sufficient to support a conviction, and the findings of fact by the trial judge will not be disturbed unless clearly erroneous. Maryland Rule 741 c; Wimbush v. State, 224 Md. 488, 168 A.2d 500; Cummings v. State, 223 Md. 606, 165 A.2d 886. The testimony of the victim alone, if believed, is sufficient to sustain the conviction. Booker v. State, 225 Md. 183, 170 A.2d 203; Booth v. State, 225 Md. 71, 169 A.2d 388. Moreover, recent possession of the fruits of the crime, if not reasonably explained, gives rise to an inference that the possessor is the thief, the inference being one of fact to be drawn by the trier of fact which in this case was the trial judge. Glaros v. State, 223 Md. 272, 164 A.2d 461; Butz v. State, 221 Md. 68, 156 A.2d 423. In this case there was ample proof, if believed by the trial judge, to sustain the conviction.
In case No. 1656, involving the robbery of Lee Schroeder, the owner and operator of a tavern, Schroeder failed to identify the appellant in a police line-up but did identify him as the robber at the preliminary hearing and at the trial. Mrs. Partlow, the other witness for the State, testified that she had seen the appellant enter the Schroeder tavern immediately prior to the robbery with two other men, one of whom was wearing a mask over his face. She identified the appellant at the police line-up, preliminary hearing, and at the trial. These witnesses'...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Boswell v. State
...v. State, 223 Md. 272, 164 A.2d 461; Booker v. State, 225 Md. 183, 170 A.2d 203; Lewis v. State, 225 Md. 474, 171 A.2d 244; Dyson v. State, 226 Md. 18, 171 A.2d 505; Ponder v. State, 227 Md. 570, 177 A.2d 839; Boggs v. State, 228 Md. 168, 179 A.2d 338; Stapf v. State, 230 Md. 106, 185 A.2d ......
-
Price v. State
...to be untenable. Williams v. State, 223 Md. 339, 340, 164 A.2d 467; Mason v. State, 225 Md. 74, 76, 169 A.2d 445; Dyson v. State, 226 Md. 18, 21, 171 A.2d 505. We now turn to the first and principal question. The State offered evidence, which, if believed, was sufficient to show the matters......
-
Cunningham v. State
...the weight of the evidence were for the trier of the facts to determine. McKenzie v. State, 236 Md. 597, 204 A.2d 678. In Dyson v. State, 226 Md. 18, 22, 171 A.2d 505, cert. den. 368 U.S. 968, 82 S.Ct. 443, 7 L.Ed.2d 397, this Court noted that discrepancies in the witnesses' testimony did n......
-
Matthews v. State
...of recently stolen goods--Stapf v. State 230 Md. 106, 108, 185 A.2d 496; Byrd v. State, 229 Md. 148, 150, 182 A.2d 48; Dyson v. State, 226 Md. 18, 21, 171 A.2d 505; Lewis v. State, 225 Md. 474, 475, 171 A.2d 244; Booker v. State, 225 Md. 183, 186, 170 A.2d 203--ordinarily cannot be imputed ......