Robinson v. State, 266
| Decision Date | 08 May 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 266,266 |
| Citation | 170 A.2d 187,225 Md. 300 |
| Parties | Edward J. ROBINSON v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Charles P. Howard, Jr., Baltimore, for appellant.
Thomas W. Jamison, III, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Thomas B. Finan, Atty. Gen., Saul A. Harris, State's Atty., and Julius A. Romano, Asst. State's Atty. for Baltimore City, Baltimore, on the brief), for appellee.
Before HENDERSON, HAMMOND, PRESCOTT, HORNEY and MARBURY, JJ.
The appellant, convicted by the court without a jury of robbery with a deadly weapon, challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and alleges error in the admission into evidence of certain oral confessions or admissions made by him.
Joe's Tavern was held up by four armed and masked men on December 29, 1959, and coins and currency were taken from the cash register. Officer Hartman, called to investigate a hold-up in progress, saw the defendant come out of the tavern. He had a 'shiny object' in his hand resembling a gun, refused to stop on command, ran, and was shot by the officer. He continued to run into the cellarway of a house. He was apprehended in an adjoining cellar, where a search revealed a revolver and $2.50 in coins secreted. The prisoner was taken to University Hospital where he was treated for a slight gunshot wound. The arresting officer testified that he had no conversation with the accused. Prior to his discharge about two hours later, the accused was questioned by Sergeant Jasper, who testified Robinson told him he received the wound in attempting to escape from the robbery at Joe's Tavern. Sergeant Jasper testified that neither he nor anyone else in his presence made any threats or offered any promises or inducements to the accused to make the statement. Lieutenant Block came in about that time and testified that Robinson told him that he had 'gotten into a little trouble with a couple of other men in a hold-up * * *' and that he had a gun but left it in a cellar. Later, when Robinson was taken to the station house, he refused to make or sign any further statements. Sergeant Andrews also testified that Robinson sent for him and told him, about three weeks later at the Baltimore City Jail, that he wished to implicate two other alleged participants in the robbery, but the prisoner's statement could not be corroborated, and no further arrests were made.
The appellant now contends that these confessions or admissions were inadmissible because the State failed to meet the burden of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stewart v. State
...357, 361, 109 A.2d 67; Merchant v. State, 217 Md. 61, 69, 141 A.2d 487; Felkner v. State, 218 Md. 300, 311, 146 A.2d 424; Robinson v. State, 225 Md. 300, 170 A.2d 187. Cf. Cooper v. State, 220 Md. 183, 152 A.2d 120; Glaros v. State, 223 Md. 272, 164 A.2d In Delnegro v. State, 198 Md. 80, 87......
-
Bitzer v. State
...Jackson v. State, 209 Md. 390, 121 A.2d 242. We are of the opinion that his reliance upon Jackson is misplaced. In Robinson v. State, 225 Md. 300, at 302, 170 A.2d 187 at 187, a similar contention was advanced and in holding that Robinson's statements were admissible, the Court 'The appella......