Gordon v. State
| Decision Date | 16 September 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 338,338 |
| Citation | 245 A.2d 401,5 Md.App. 102 |
| Parties | Ronnie GORDON v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Jack E. Richards, Baltimore, for appellant.
Thomas N. Biddison, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., with whom were Francis B. Burch, Atty. Gen., Charles E. Moylan, Jr., and James Garrity, State's Atty. and Asst. State's Atty. for Baltimore City, respectively, on brief, for appellee.
Before MURPHY, C. J., and ANDERSON, MORTON, ORTH and THOMPSON, JJ.
The appellant was found guilty of robbery with a dealdly weapon at a court trial in the Criminal Court of Baltimore and sentenced to imprisonment for a term of 8 years. On appeal from the judgment the contentions raised go to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction.
There was evidence adduced by the State that on 11 February 1967 about 2:30 A.M. Mrs. Lyndel Hogan, a cab driver, discharged a passenger at Fremont nd Penn Streets. Three boys came up, one with a gun on the driver's side of the cab and the other two on the opposite side. 1 They took her purse, with her money-$53.00-and personal belongings. Another cab approached and the boys ran. She reported the robbery on her radio. At the trial Mrs. Hogan identified the boy with the gun as Ronnie C. Gamble, Jr. but was unable to identify the other two. The cab the approached the scene of the crime was driven by Leroy Williams. He saw the three boys, one leaning inside the cab on the driver's side and two on the opposite side. They ran as he approached. He heard the report of the robbery on his radio, followed them and saw them go into a house on Portland Street. The police arrived and he reported his observations. At the trial he identified the appellant and Gamble as two of the boys he had seen. Officer James George responded to the report of the robbery and went to the scene. After talking to Mrs. Hogan and Williams he went to 625 Portlant Street, the house Williams had seen the boys enter. He and other officers were admitted into the house and found a pistol and the contents of Mrs. Hogan's purse strewn about the premises. No question as to the search and seizure is presented on appeal. The three boys were arrested in the house. Mary Johnson testified that the appellant, Gamble and Beckett had been in her house earlier that evening. They left and returned about 2:30 A.M. after being gone a 'half hour to an hour.' Five or ten minutes after they returned the police arrived.
The corpus delicti of the crime of robbery with a deadly weapon was proved and we think that the evidence was sufficient for the lower court to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mason v. State
...by the evidence. Gaskins v. State, 7 Md.App. 99, 105, 253 A.2d 759; Halcomb v. State, 6 Md.App. 32, 250 A.2d 119; Gordon v. State, 5 Md.App. 102, 245 A.2d 401; Malloy v. State, 4 Md.App. 420, 243 A.2d 649; Huber v. State, 2 Md.App. 245, 234 A.2d 264; Tipton v. State, 1 Md.App. 556, 232 A.2d......
-
Halcomb v. State
...... It is, of course, incumbent upon the court when requested in a criminal case to give an advisory instruction on every essential point of law supported by the evidence. Gordon v. State, 5 Md.App. 102, 245 A.2d 401; Malloy v. State, 4 Md.App. 420, 243 A.2d 649; Huber v. State, 2 Md.App. 245, 234 A.2d 264; Tipton v. State, 1 Md.App. 556, 232 A.2d 289. Under the circumstances of this case, we think it evident that the lower court erred when it advised the jury in sum and ......
-
Gaskins v. State, 330
...to the jury on every essential point of law supported by the evidence. See Halcomb v. State, 6 Md.App. 32, 250 A.2d 119; Gordon v. State, 5 Md.App. 102; Malloy v. State, 4 Md.App. 420, 243 A.2d 649; Huber v. State, 2 Md.App. 245, 234 A.2d 264; Tipton v. State, 1 Md.App. 556, 232 A.2d 289; M......
-
Watson v. State
...A.2d 626 (1968); Gibson v. State, 4 Md.App. 222, 226, 242 A.2d 204 (1968), which is a matter for the fact finder. Gordon v. State, 5 Md.App. 102, 104, 245 A.2d 401 (1968); Gunn v. State, 4 Md.App. 379, 384, 243 A.2d 15 (1968). In a trial before the court, identification is for the trial jud......