Martin v. State, 173
| Decision Date | 24 January 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 173,173 |
| Citation | 177 A.2d 247,227 Md. 407 |
| Parties | Edward B. MARTIN, Jr. v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Donald P. Roman, Baltimore, for appellant.
Thomas B. Finan, Atty. Gen., Joseph D. Buscher, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Edward B. Rybczynski, Sp. Atty., Saul A. Harris and Charles E. Moylan, Jr., State's Atty. and Asst. State's Atty., respectively, Baltimore City, Baltimore, for appellee.
Before BRUNE, C. J., and HENDERSON, HAMMOND, HORNEY and MARBURY, JJ.
Edward B. Martin, Jr., the appellant, was tried and convicted by the court sitting without a jury, on the first count of four indictments. The first count of each indictment charged him with robbery with a dangerous or deadly weapon of a different cleaning establishment, threatening a female employee with bodily harm, and proceeding to force her to give him the currency on the premises. The offenses were alleged to have occurred on four different days. In indictments Nos. 2030, 2033, and 2035 the prosecuting witnesses testified to seeing a knife in the hand of the appellant as he threatened them with bodily harm. The court imposed a sentence of twenty years in the Maryland Penitentiary in each case, making the sentences under indictments No. 2030 and 2033 to run consecutively, and the others concurrently. From the judgments entered thereon the appellant appeals.
Appellant first contends that the trial court erred in not letting him take the stand in his own defense, but his counsel, with admirable candor, admits no merit in this contention, since, at the close of the State's testimony no offer was made to place the defendant on the stand in his own defense, and the defendant's case was closed without any defense testimony. Gladden v. State, No. 121 September Term, 1961, Md., 176 A.2d 219; Brown v. State, 223 Md. 401, 164 A.2d 722.
His second contention is that the trial court was in error in finding the defendant guilty on the first count in indictment No. 2032 on the evidence. We find no merit in this contention. The prosecuting witness, Mrs. Mildred Jenkins, testified that appellant kept his hand under his coat during the hold up and threatened 'I will kill you if I have to,' and proceeded to rob the premises. This witness further identified the appellant as the person who did and said these things. In addition Sergeant Charles Stefan of the Baltimore City Police, a witness for the State, described the apprehension of the appellant and the taking of four voluntary statements which, without objection, were admitted into evidence, and in which the appellant admitted all four robberies with a deadly weapon as charged in the indictments. Also...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hughes v. State
...of Rights, Constitution of Maryland. Imprisonment for years or life has been held not to be cruel and unusual. Martin v. State, 227 Md. 407, 410, 177 A.2d 247. II Hughes contends that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence a book seized from his apartment under the authority of a ......
-
Wright v. State
...also extends with the same limitations to the determination of whether a sentence will be consecutive or concurrent. Martin v. State, 227 Md. 407, 410, 177 A.2d 247 (1962); Long v. State, 7 Md.App. 256, 263, 254 A.2d 707 (1969). In the case at bar, the argument advanced by the State is in e......
-
Kaylor v. State
...constitute cruel and unusual punishment where the length of each sentence is within the limits prescribed by statute, Martin v. State, 227 Md. 407, 177 A.2d 247 (1962); Jones v. State, 3 Md.App. 608, 240 A.2d 347, Cert. denied, 394 U.S. 993, 89 S.Ct. 1484, 22 L.Ed.2d 769 (1969). Here the ap......
-
Lewis v. State
...evidence to support a rational inference that he did in fact have a deadly weapon in his pocket during the offense. Cf. Martin v. State, 227 Md. 407, 177 A.2d 247 (1962); Barefoot v. State, 222 Md. 67, 158 A.2d 649 (1960); Vincent v. State, 220 Md. 232, 151 A.2d 898 (1959). Evidence that th......