Honest v. State
| Decision Date | 03 December 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 8,8 |
| Citation | 248 A.2d 164,5 Md.App. 480 |
| Parties | Milton Rudolph HONEST v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Robert V. Lazzaro, with G. Denmead LeViness, Baltimore, on the brief, for appellant.
Thomas N. Biddison, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., with whom were Francis B. Burch, Atty. Gen., Samuel A. Green, Jr., and William J. Blondell, Jr., State's Atty., and Asst. State's Atty., for Baltimore County respectively, on the brief, for appellee.
Before MURPHY, C. J., and ANDERSON, MORTON, ORTH, and THOMPSON, JJ.
The appellant, Milton Rudolph Honest, was found guilty by a jury in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County on an indictment charging robbery with a deadly weapon, and on two separate indictments, each charging assault with intent to murder. He was sentenced to respective prison terms of 12 years, 5 years (consecutive) and 5 years (concurrent).
The record indicates that at 3:00 A.M. on May 22, 1967, the night auditor of a Holiday Inn was sitting alone in the lobby when accosted from behind by two men who ordered him, at gunpoint, to open the safe and then lie on the floor. After taking $425 from the safe and some money from the victim's wallet, the men left the premises. The auditor called the police, gave a general description of the men, but was unable to identify Honest as being one of the robbers.
The desk clerk of the Inn testified that as he was leaving the building to direct a guest to a nearby restaurant, he observed the two men going into the building through the back door. He returned to the building, looked in and, when he could not see the auditor, suspected something was wrong. He related his suspicions to a police officer who was sitting in a cruise car across the street; got in the back seat of the police car and was driven over to the front of the motel, where he observed through the front window one of the men reaching under the counter, getting the cash box, and further testified that the two men 'stared at us and we stared at them'. The men then ran out the back door. The officer immediately drove the car around to the rear of the motel where the two men were observed beside a car. According to the desk clerk, as the officer began to notify his dispatcher over the car radio of this encounter one of the men, wearing sun glasses, started running toward the police car whereupon the clerk got on the rear floor of the car heard three shots and the window of the police car shatter. He could not positively identify Honest at a lineup, 'but I told them the one on the end (Honest) looks more like the one than the others'. He did identify Honest in the courtroom as the one who fired the shots at the patrol car.
The driver of the police car testified substantially in accordance with the clerk's testimony. He also made an in court identification of Honest as the individual who fired at him in the police car, having previously identified him in a police lineup.
Another officer, Edward Amoss, testified that he stopped a car that he observed leaving the Holiday Inn parking lot at approximately 3:10 A.M.; that neither of the two occupants was Honest; but upon searching the car he and another officer found a bowling shoe bag with a yellow tag attached to it which the name Duke written thereon and the bag contained an empty revolver holster and a bill of sale for a 1957 Cadillac made out to Honest.
An arrest warrant was issued two days after the crimes and a Sergeant Joseph Gomeriger and a Detective Sutter went to a residence where the appellant roomed to serve it. Receiving no answer at the appellant's room, they spoke with a Mrs. Martin, the mother of the landlady, who recognized the appellant by the nickname Duke. The landlady then arrived and granted them permission to enter the appellant's room. They searched under the bed and in the closet without finding the appellant. Upon opening the closet door one of the officers observed a revolver 'on the closet shelf * * * sticking out from between two blankets' and called the other officer's attention to the weapon. At this point the search was discontinued and one of the officers...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bremer v. State
...were fired from a handgun which was in Bremer's possession, were legally enough to establish Bremer's criminal agency. Honest v. State, 5 Md.App. 480, 248 A.2d 164. The trial court did not err in denying Bremer's motion for judgment of acquittal made at the close of all the evidence. Willia......
-
Jones v. State
...identifications of him as the robber by the victim and the eyewitness were sufficient to establish his criminal agency. Honest v. State, 5 Md.App. 480, 248 A.2d 164; Williams v. State, 4 Md.App. 558, 244 A.2d 476. See Barnes v. State, 5 Md.App. 144, 245 A.2d 626. But even without their iden......