Jones v. State

• Citation: 218 A.2d 7,242 Md. 95
• Decision Date: 30 March 1966
• Docket Number: No. 57,57
• Parties: Clifford Herman JONES v. STATE of Maryland.
• Court: Court of Appeals of Maryland

Page 95

242 Md. 95

218 A.2d 7

Clifford Herman JONES v. STATE of Maryland.

No. 57.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

March 30, 1966.

William J. Rowan, III, Bethesda, for appellant.

Edward F. Borgerding, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Thomas B. Finan, Atty. Gen., Baltimore, and Leonard T. Kardy, State's Atty. for Montgomery County, and James F. Tomes, Asst. State's Atty. for Montgomery County, Rockville, on the brief), for appellee.

Before PRESCOTT, C. J., and HORNEY, MARBURY, OPPENHEIMER and BARNES, JJ.

OPPENHEIMER, Judge.

This is an appeal from a conviction of assault and battery in a non-jury trial in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County. Clifford Herman Jones, the appellant, contends that his arrest was unlawful, and, if it was, that some of the evidence used against him was illegally obtained and there was not sufficient evidence to convict him.

At the trial, Miss Dierdre Roberts testified that, as she was returning to her home in Silver Spring at about one-thirty or two o'clock in the morning of June 21, 1964, she was 'jumped' from behind as she got out of her car. On her way home, she had noticed a car behind her, which turned on its bright lights every time she came to a stop sign. She screamed, struggled with her assailant, and ripped his shirt. Face to face with him, she saw that he was a Negro of slight build and that his shirt which she ripped was plaid. She broke away from him, but was hit in the eye. During the struggle, her assailant snatched her pocketbook. She had noticed that the automobile which had followed her was a small foreign sports car. At the trial, Miss Roberts identified the appellant, Jones, as her assailant; she had previously identified him in a police lineup. She also identified a plaid shirt, in a ripped condition, as the shirt her assailant was wearing at the time of the attack; when the struggle took place, there was a street light half a block away and, across the street, there were lights from apartments and a court.

Michael Hardesty and his wife were visiting on the third floor in an apartment house near the scene of the attack. He heard screams and rushed downstairs, followed by his host. He testified that he heard a small sports car going around the corner. He saw it was small, and could tell it was a sports car by the way it sounded. He and his friend saw Miss Roberts holding her eye, then they gave chase in Hardesty's car, but the other car eluded them, and they returned to the scene of the attack. The police were there. Hardesty testified that the car he and his friend had followed 'cast a shadow giving a small, compact figure, that it was more possibly a sports car than any other; along with the fact that the sports car had a distinct mushed noise. If you are acquainted with automobile sounds you may recognize it more apt than others might, but gave me the impression of a sports car, like a MG or a Triumph or something like that.' He was not an expert on automobiles.

Detective Robertson of the Montgomery County Police testified that, in response to a call, he arrived at the scene shortly before 2 A.M. Miss Roberts described her assailant to the detective as 'a colored male, approximately five foot eight, wearing a plaid shirt.' A few feet from Miss Roberts' car, the detective found a pocketbook, with its contents scattered, and a piece of a shirt, which was put into evidence. Detective Robertson talked to Mr. Hardesty and other people at the scene, whose names he could not recall, and, from the information received, put out a lookout for 'robbery. Sport-red sports convertible with a black top operated by a colored male, five foot eight, wearing a plaid shirt.' The information upon which the lookout was based was received from Miss Roberts, Mr. Hardesty and 'some of the witnesses.' He testified there were half a dozen people or more at the scene. The detective could not recall 'exactly who gave me the description.' The lookout was placed a very short time after the officer's arrival.

Officer Martin Holt heard the lookout which had been placed over the police radio. He remembered it as 'for a Negro driving a small sports car red in color with a black top.' The crime was described as an assault and attempted robbery. At about 2 A.M., Officer Holt stopped a car, which met the lookout description, driven by Jones, who, the officer testified, corresponded in appearance to the description of the suspect given over the lookout. Jones' car could not be moved. Jones was put in the police car and was driven to the hospital to which Miss Roberts had been taken. Officer Holt testified that when Jones was apprehended, he was wearing a sweater, beneath which was a plaid shirt. At the hospital, it was observed that the sleeve of Jones' shirt was torn.

Expert testimony was admitted at the trial, over objection, showing that the piece of material found at the scene of the attack was torn from the plaid shirt worn by Jones, and that a palm print found on the rear bumper of Miss Roberts' automobile matched Jones' palm print, which was taken at the police station after his arrest. The question of the legality of the arrest was duly raised by Jones' counsel during the trial. The court held the arrest was legal and overruled the objections to the admissibility of the evidence secured after the arrest.

The indictment contained four counts: robbery, assault with intent to rob, assault and battery, and larceny. At the close of the State's case, a motion for a directed verdict was made on Jones' behalf as to all counts, and the motion was granted as to the first count, robbery. Jones took the stand and asserted his innocence. His motion for a directed verdict was renewed at the close of the case, and was granted as to the counts for assault with intent to rob and larceny. Jones was found guilty on the third count, assault and battery, and was sentenced to ten years in the House of Correction.

In this appeal, Jones' counsel properly concedes that there was probable cause for the arresting officer to believe that a felony had been committed. Robbery is a common law crime and a felony. Hayes v. State, 211 Md. 111, 113, 126 A.2d 576 (1956) and Hollohan v. State, 32 Md. 399 (1870). See also Kauffman, The Law of Arrest in Maryland, 5 Md.L.Rev. 125, 150, n. 99 (1941). From the victim's statement and her appearance, there was ample ground for the investigating officer who placed the lookout to believe a robbery had been committed; the...