Hicks v. State
| Decision Date | 13 June 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 295,295 |
| Citation | 225 Md. 560,171 A.2d 722 |
| Parties | John Anthony HICKS, Jr., v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Francis X. Pugh, Baltimore, Md., for appellant.
Louis E. Schmidt, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen. (Thomas B. Finan, Atty. Gen., Joseph S Kaufman, Deputy Atty. Gen., Saul A. Harris and Russell J. White, State's Atty., and Asst. State's Atty., respectively, for Baltimore City, Baltimore, on the brief), for appellee.
Before BRUNE, C. J., and HENDERSON, PRESCOTT, HORNEY and MARBURY, JJ.
The appellant, a teen-age youth, was convicted, in the Criminal Court of Baltimore, of robbery, and sentenced to serve not more than five years in the Maryland State Reformatory for Males.
The only question raised is an alleged insufficiency of evidence to support the finding of guilt. The contention is so patently frivolous that it amounts to no more than another obvious illustration of the 'nothing-to-lose philosophy' resorted to so frequently by indigent defendants since the decision in the case of Griffin v. People of State of Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, 76 S.Ct. 585, 100 L.Ed. 891.
Since the function of this Court on an appeal of this nature has been so frequently stated and restated, it will be unnecessary to repeat it again. Clay v. State, 211 Md. 577, 128 A.2d 634, is one of the numerous cases wherein the rule is stated. See also Maryland Rule 741 c.
There was testimony to the effect that the prosecuting witness, one Walter Douglas, was accosted by two young men while walking to a restaurant, struck in the mouth, and robbed of his wallet, the money contained therein, his keys and a package of cigarettes. As the two young men fled from the scene of the robbery, Douglas blew a whistle which he had in his possession. The whistle alerted two police officers, who were cruising in a patrol car in the vicinity. These officers observed two young men running down a street, about two and one-half blocks from whether the robbery had occurred. The young men stopped under a spot-light on a housing project, and examined the contents of a wallet. As the officers approached them, one of the men, the appellant's codefendant, dropped the wallet, and both proceeded to walk down the street. As the officers came closer, the appellant dropped a package of Camel cigarettes, the same brand of cigarettes that had been taken from Douglas. The two men were placed under arrest and taken back to the location of the spotlight where Douglas' wallet and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Price v. State
...therefore, his findings based upon the evidence as to what occurred are not to be set aside by us. Maryland Rule 741 c; Hicks v. State, 225 Md. 560, 561, 171 A.2d 722; Reed v. State, 225 Md. 566, 573, 171 A.2d 464; Dyson v. State, supra, 226 Md. at 20-21, 171 A.2d 505 (to cite only three of......
-
Crumb v. State
...of the defendant by the victim was for the trial court to determine. Watkins v. State, 237 Md. 357, 206 A.2d 568 (1965); Hicks v. State, 225 Md. 560, 171 A.2d 722 (1961). The identification of an accused by a single eye-witness has often been held sufficient to sustain a conviction. Coates ......
-
Gunn v. State
...disturbed on appeal in the absence of clear error. We see no such error. See Watkins v. State, 237 Md. 357, 206 A.2d 568; Hicks v. State, 225 Md. 560, 171 A.2d 722; Logan v. State, 1 Md.App. 213, 228 A.2d 837; Carroll v. State, 3 Md.App. 50, 237 A.2d 535; Crumb v. State, 1 Md.App. 98, 227 A......
-
Watkins v. State
...the customer to the effect that the defendant was not at the scene of the holdup, was for the trial court to determine. Hicks v. State, 225 Md. 560, 171 A.2d 722 (1961). See also Hursey v. State, 233 Md. 243, 196 A.2d 472 (1964); Dyson v. State, 226 Md. 18, 171 A.2d 505 (1961), cert. den. 3......