Moyer v. State, 219
| Decision Date | 12 April 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 219,219 |
| Citation | 225 Md. 156,169 A.2d 409 |
| Parties | Albert R. MOYER v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
William R. Buchanan, Towson, for appellant.
William J. McCarthy, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Thomas B. Finan, Atty. Gen., Frank H. Newell, III, State's Atty., and Paul J. Feeley, Asst. State's Atty., Baltimore County, Towson, on the brief), for appellee.
Before BRUNE, C. J., and HENDERSON, HAMMOND, PRESCOTT and HORNEY, JJ.
The appellant (Albert R. Moyer) and a brother (Alton Moyer), who did not appeal, were tried together and convicted by the Circuit Court for Batimore County, sitting without a jury, of armed robbery of a tavern. Several weeks later, the appellant pled guilty in the same court to a charge of breaking and entering a pharmacy. This appeal is from the judgment imposed in each case.
The only contention with regard to the armed robbery charge is that the trial court erred when it admitted the oral confession of the appellant into evidence without first requiring the State to show that the statement was the free and voluntary act of the accused. The claim is without substance. The record shows that after the State had concluded its proof of the voluntary character of the statements the appellant (and his brother) had given to the police, the appellant categorically declined to offer any testimony in rebuttal. Nor did he claim that the State had failed to establish the voluntary aspect of the statement when the court stated that the 'necessary background' had been laid and permitted further interrogation of the police officers. Thus, it is apparent that the failure to object or to offer testimony precludes a review of the question on this appeal. Maryland Rule 885. Moreover, the record is clear that such objections as were made by the appellant went, not to the admissibility of the confession as such, but to the use against him of the statements made by his brother and co-defendant. As to such statements, the record is also clear that it was 'understood that anything that Alton said out of the presence of Albert [was] not to be considered against Albert.' There was therefore no reason why the court could not consider the statements in accordance with the stipulation along with other evidence produced at the trial.
With respect to the breaking and entering charge, the contention is that the trial court erred in accepting a plea of guilty. Obviously the claim is that even after a plea of guilty is entered, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bruno v. State
...charges on the stet docket. Unlike a guilty plea, under which the State would be relieved of its burden of proof, Moyer v. State, 225 Md. 156, 158, 169 A.2d 409, 410 (1961), Bruno's not guilty plea required the State to present stipulated evidence sufficient to constitute first degree rape ......
-
Bitzer v. State
...of the officers on the ground that the confessions were involuntary. Cf. Clay v. State, 211 Md. 577, 586, 128 A.2d 634, and Moyer v. State, 225 Md. 156, 169 A.2d 409. See also Jackson v. State, 224 Md. 267, 270, 167 A.2d 789.' In the case at bar, the Appellant took the stand and at no time ......
-
Campbell v. Warden, Md. House of Correction
...order, Bennett v. Warden, 223 Md. 664, 164 A.2d 285 (1960), and obviates the necessity of proving the offense charged, Moyer v. State, 225 Md. 156, 169 A.2d 409 (1961), the contention in a post conviction proceeding that evidence tending to prove the guilt of the petitioner had been seized ......
-
Cason v. Director of Patuxent Inst.
...order, Bennett v. Warden, 223 Md. 664, 164 A.2d 285 (1960), and obviates the necessity of proving the offense charged, Moyer v. State, 225 Md. 156, 169 A.2d 409 (1961), the contention in a post conviction proceeding that evidence tending to prove the guilt of the petitioner had been seized ......