Oakley v. State
| Decision Date | 08 March 1965 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 219,219-B,s. 219 |
| Citation | 207 A.2d 472,238 Md. 48 |
| Parties | Jerome OAKLEY and Arnold L. Summerville v. STATE of Maryland. Charles McKINNEY, Jr. v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
John R. Hargrove, Baltimore (Howard & Hargrove, Baltimore, on the brief), for Jerome Oakley.
Morris Lee Kaplan, Baltimore (Michael Lee Kaplan, Baltimore, on the brief), for Arnold L. Summerville.
Howard M. Heneson, Baltimore (Roland Walker, Baltimore, on the brief), for Charles McKinney, Jr., other appellant.
Franklin Goldstein, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Thomas B. Finan, Atty. Gen., Charles E. Moylan, Jr. and David T. Mason, State's Atty. and Asst. State's Atty., Baltimore, for Baltimore City, on the brief), for appellee.
Before PRESCOTT, C. J., and HAMMOND, HORNEY, MARBURY and SYBERT, JJ.
These appeals involve three appellants, who were jointly indicted; but, upon a severance being granted to one, two where tried jointly and the other, alone, by the same judge, sitting without a jury, in the Criminal Court of Baltimore. The appeals are unusual to the extent that two of the appellants, although convicted of serious offenses, have raised no constitutional issues.
Jerome Oakley was convicted of murder in the first degree under Indictment No. 5254 (Hubert L. Cox, the victim), and of simple assault under the second court of Indictment No. 5255 (Wilbur Crawford, the victim). Although he noted an appeal from the assault conviction, he admits in this Court that he was guilty of this charge; hence Oakley's appeal is confined to the murder conviction. The only issue raised by him is his challenge of the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction.
Arnold L. Summerville, the other appellant who was tried jointly with Oakley, was also found guilty of murder in the first degree under Indictment No. 5254, and guilty of assault with intent to murder under the first count of Indictment No. 5255. He, too, questions the sufficiency of the evidence (in both convictions), and also claims the court was in error in admitting the 'statement into evidence against him.'
Charles McKinney, Jr., the third appellant, was, likewise, found guilty of murder in the first degree under Indictment No. 5254, and guilty generally (which amounted to assault with intent to murder) under Indictment No. 5255. He contends the evidence was insufficient to warrant his convictions.
The principal contention of all the appellants is that the evidence was insufficient to establish that Cox was killed in the perpetration of, or an attempt to perpetrate, a robbery. Code (1964 Supp.), Article 27, Section 410. The State counters by stating that the testimony clearly impelled a finding that the killing was in the perpetration, or attempted perpetration, of robbery; but, assuming that the testimony falls short of this goal, it establishes the guilt of the appellants of murder in the first degree under Code (1957), Article 27, Section 407.
Summerville and McKinney also challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the assault convictions; and Summerville contends the court erred in admitting into evidence a 'statement' made by him.
There was credible evidence from which the trial judge could have found the following facts. On October 13, 1963, Cox left his home in his wife's car at about 9:15 p. m., carrying a wallet which contained $5.00, a driver's license and a registration card. He went to the garage of Wilbur Crawford and picked him up. They went to a restaurant where Cox bought a sandwich, a bowl of soup, and a half of a pint of whiskey which was consumed by the two of them. They then went to Becky's Bar and parked the automobile. Cox entered the bar, while Crawford remained in the car because he was wearing his work clothes. Inside the bar were some 7 or 8 people: males and females. Some were seated at a table engaging in a card game. Cox did not speak to anyone, but approached the bar as though he intended to order a drink. Suddenly and without giving any warning, appellants Oakley and Charles McKinney 'jumped right on him [Cox] and started hitting him * * *.' They were soon joined in their attack by appellant Summerville. Both McKinney and Summerville had knives (one witness stated they 'all' had knives), and were hitting and cutting him about the head and stabbing him in the chest and side. It was not long before Cox fell to the floor with his attackers on top of him. McKinney and Summerville 'went through his pockets.'
All of the attackers then left the bar, and shortly thereafter Oakley returned and he also 'went through [Cox's] pockets.' After leaving the bar and going outside, Oakley, Summerville and McKinney began to attack Crawford, who had been waiting in the automobile. Summerville entered the car and ordered Crawford 'to empty [his] pockets,' saying, 'we have just killed your friend, I think, and you are next.' After these brief and alarming introductory remarks, Summerville started cutting Crawford across his face and the back of his neck. Summerville was accompanied at this time by Oakley and McKinney and one or two others. They 'pushed' and 'pulled' him out of the car and began kicking him. At the behest of one or more of the females who had been in the bar, the group ceased the attack on Crawford. As McKinney left the group, he was told by one of the females that Cox had been killed; whereupon he stated that 'the son of a bitch should be dead.'
Crawford was treated for cuts about his face and neck at the hospital, where stitches had to be taken. Dr. Sadano testified the cause of death of Cox was multiple stab wounds. And nothing was found in the pockets of Cox after the killing.
Practically all, if not all, of the evidence offered by appellants was the following. Oakley testified that he didn't participate or see the Cox affray; and, although he saw the fight outside, he took no part therein, and could not identify any of the participants. Summerville took the stand, stated he saw the Cox affair but neither he, Oakley, nor McKinney participated therein, and that when he went outside Crawford attacked him and he cut Crawford with his knife.
From the above statement of facts, it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Boone v. State
...is freely and voluntarily given will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of a showing of abuse of discretion. Oakley, Etc. v. State, 238 Md. 48, 207 A.2d 472; Abbott v. State, 231 Md. 462, 190 A.2d 797; Bryant v. State, 229 Md. 531, 185 A.2d 190. Cf. Md.Rule 886a. We find no such abus......
-
Glenn v. State
...Bird v. State, 231 Md. 432, 436, 190 A.2d 804 (1963); Tate v. State, 236 Md. 312, 317-318, 203 A.2d 882 (1964); Oakley v. State, 238 Md. 48, 52-53, 207 A.2d 472 (1965); Taylor v. State, 238 Md. 424, 432-433, 209 A.2d 595 (1965); McFadden v. State, 2 Md.App. 725, 727-728, 237 A.2d 93 (1968);......
-
State v. Jenkins
...under proper circumstances, be inferred by the use of a deadly weapon directed at a vital part of the human body"); Oakley, Etc. v. State, 238 Md. 48, 53, 207 A.2d 472 (1965), cert. denied, 384 U.S. 1021, 86 S.Ct. 1927, 16 L.Ed.2d 1022 (1966) (defendants "cut [the victim] in and about vital......
-
Ford v. State
...proper circumstances, be inferred by the use of a deadly weapon directed at a vital part of the human body...."); Oakley v. State, 238 Md. 48, 53, 207 A.2d 472 (1965), cert. denied, 384 U.S. 1021, 86 S.Ct. 1927, 16 L.Ed.2d 1022 (1966) (defendants "cut [the victim] in and about vital parts o......