Jones v. State

• Citation: 219 A.2d 77,242 Md. 323
• Decision Date: 27 April 1966
• Docket Number: No. 71,71
• Parties: Charles W. A. JONES v. STATE of Maryland.
• Court: Court of Appeals of Maryland

Page 323

242 Md. 323

219 A.2d 77

Charles W. A. JONES v. STATE of Maryland.

No. 71.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

April 27, 1966.

Thomas F. Dempsey, Baltimore (James A. Ehrhart, Baltimore, on the brief), for appellant.

R. Randolph Victor, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Thomas B. Finan, Atty. Gen., Charles E. Moylan, Jr. and Malcolm Kitt, State's Atty. and Asst. State's Atty., respectively, for Baltimore City, on the brief), Baltimore, for appellee.

Before PRESCOTT, C. J., MARBURY, OPPENHEIMER, and McWILLIAMS, JJ., and E. MACKALL CHILDS, Special Judge.

MARBURY, Judge.

The appellant, Charles W. A. Jones, was found guilty of robbery in the Criminal Court of Baltimore, by Judge Dulany Foster, sitting without a jury, and was sentenced to thirty months in the Maryland Correctional Institution for Men. The appellant's sole contention on this appeal is that the evidence adduced below was insufficient to justify the trial judge's verdict of guilty.

At the trial, Lucy Schorback, the prosecuting witness, testified that on January 7, 1965, at 12:55 in the afternoon she was walking in the vicinity of the 100 block of Mulberry Street, near the Enoch Pratt Free Library, when three men approached her from the rear and one of them grabbed her shopping bag, which contained food and personal items, including a handbag containing approximately $200. The witness testified that the person who had grabbed the shopping bag wore a coat which she described as being 'between a brown and a tan' in color and that the defendant 'looked like' that man although she did not testify that he was one of the robbers.

Shortly after the above incident, and less than a block from where it had occurred, Joseph Cziwinski, a taxicab driver, was stopped at the intersection of Park Avenue and Mulberry Street, waiting for the traffic light to change. As the light turned green, he saw three Negro boys dash in front of his cab running in a westerly direction across the intersection, and then run into an alley north from Mulberry Street. Although he did not get a good look at the boys' faces he did notice their heights and that one of them had on a black leather jacket, one had a brown jacket, and he was unable to say how the third was dressed. The cab driver, continuing in a northerly direction, drove to Franklin Street where he made a left turn and then proceeded in the direction of Howard Street. Arriving at Tyson Street he then saw the same three youths emerging from the alley and observed the boy in the black leather jacket with a woman's purse, which he was in the process of 'sticking' under his jacket.

The driver then sounded his horn in order to alert a traffic policeman, who was stationed at the corner of Howard and Franklin Streets. At the sound of the horn, according to Cziwinski, the three boys disbanded, two of them going north on Tyson Street, while the third, whom the witness identified in the courtroom as the defendant Jones, walked west, over to the north side of Franklin Street. Jones was immediately apprehended at Howard Street after Cziwinski had informed the arresting officer that '* * * there is one of the three boys that was running down the street, one of them was sticking a pocketbook into his coat.' The witness Cziwinski further testified that he could positively identify Jones as one of the youths who had run in front of his cab at Park Avenue and Mulberry by the appearance of his clothes, more particularly the brown jacket which he was wearing at the time he was apprehended.

The only witness who was called to testify for the defense was the twenty year old defendant himself, who, despite his youth, had already been previously convicted of burglary and larceny. Jones testified that he had been job hunting on January 7, 1965, and in the course of his search was walking in the vicinity of Mulberry Street when he observed a boy grab the prosecuting witness' shopping bag. Defendant Jones testified that he chased the boy into the alley whereupon he noticed another boy running with the first, and that he chased both of them until one ran into a side alley, while the other continued straight. According to Jones he chased one of the boys until he came out onto Franklin Street. He stated emphatically that he did not know either of the boys whom he was chasing and that he had 'nothing at all' to do with the crime of which he was accused.

It is our view that four factors, taken together, support the finding by the trial judge that the appellant committed the crime of which he was convicted. Those four factors are: (1) Appellant's presence at the scene of the crime; (2) prosecuting witness' testimony as to the similarity of identity between the defendant and the man who grabbed her shopping bag; (3) appellant's running from the scene of the crime; and (4) appellant's presence with another youth who was attempting, while in the process of fleeing from the scene of the crime, to secrete an item of the kind which was missing from the victim's shopping bag.

In regard to the first factor, the appellant's own testimony placed him at the scene of the crime. Judge Prescott, now Chief Judge, speaking for this Court...