Thornton v. State, 58

Citation232 Md. 542,194 A.2d 617
Decision Date05 November 1963
Docket NumberNo. 58,58
PartiesWilliam H. THORNTON v. STATE of Maryland.
CourtCourt of Appeals of Maryland

Edward A. Palamara, Rockville, for appellant.

Loring E. Hawes, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Thomas B. Finan, Atty. Gen., Baltimore, Leonard T. Kardy, State's Atty., and Alfred Burka, Asst. State's Atty., for Montgomery County, Rockville, on the brief), for appellee.

Before HENDERSON, HAMMOND, HORNEY, MARBURY and SYBERT, JJ.

HENDERSON, Judge.

The appellant was tried and found guilty by a jury on the first count of three separate indictments charging robbery with a deadly weapon of one Steve Balog, and the attempted robbery with a deadly weapon of Donald Peacock and James Raynor. He contends (1) that he was not sufficiently identified by his accusers, (2) that the evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction for robbery with a deadly weapon, (3) that he did not receive a fair trial, and (4) that the trial court erred in instructing the jury.

Sometime after 2 A.M. on April 14, 1962, Thornton and seven companions attacked the occupants of another car parked on the public school grounds in Sandy Spring. Thornton was driving his own car, and had a gun. Thornton pulled in back of the parked car and one of his cronies said, 'maybe they have got some money.' Rounds, one of the occupants of Thornton's car, told the officers that Thornton handed him the gun and told him to keep the victims covered while he, Thornton, robbed them. There was testimony that someone in Thornton's car pointed a gun and threatened to shoot. The three occupants of the parked car got out and a general melee ensued. All three were beaten and robbed. The gun was fired several times but no one was shot. Thornton drove his group to Washington and purchased refreshments for them.

On the first point, the record is devoid of any objection to the extra-judicial identification of Thornton by one of the prosecuting witnesses in this case, so the point is not before us under Maryland Rule 885. Balog testified that he had identified Thornton as his assailant when he saw him through a one-way glass window at the police station, without any prompting by the police. Balog pointed out Thornton in the court room. Peacock also pointed out Thornton as Balog's assailant. We think the identification was sufficient. See Tate v. State, 229 Md. 454, 455, 184 A.2d 739, and cases cited. In Proctor v. State, 223 Md. 394, 399, 164 A.2d 708 we cited with approval the Wisconsin case of Johnson v. State, 254 Wis. 320, 36 N.W.2d 86, very similar on its facts. We think there was no showing of unfairness or unreliability in the case at bar. Cf. Sippio v. State, 227 Md. 449, 451, 177 A.2d...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Bowers v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • 1 Septiembre 1984
    ...is committed, and who aids or abets in its commission. See Camphor v. State, 233 Md. 203, 205, 196 A.2d 75 (1963); Thorton v. State, 232 Md. 542, 544, 194 A.2d 617 (1963); Veney v. State, 225 Md. 237, 238, 170 A.2d 171 (1961); Agresti v. State, 2 Md.App. 278, 280, 234 A.2d 284 (1967); 4 W. ......
  • Pope v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • 19 Enero 1979
    ...is committed, and who aids or abets in its commission. See Camphor v. State, 233 Md. 203, 205, 196 A.2d 75 (1963); Thornton v. State, 232 Md. 542, 544, 194 A.2d 617 (1963); Veney v. State, 225 Md. 237, 238, 170 A.2d 171 (1961); Agresti v. State, 2 Md.App. 278, 280, 234 A.2d 284 (1967); 4 W.......
  • State v. Ward
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • 21 Diciembre 1978
    ...See State v. Williamson, 282 Md. 103-105, 382 A.2d 588; Camphor v. State, 233 Md. 203, 205, 196 A.2d 75 (1963); Thornton v. State, 232 Md. 542, 544, 194 A.2d 617 (1963); Veney v. State, 225 Md. 237, 238, 170 A.2d 171 (1961); Davis v. State, 38 Md. 15, 45 (1873); Agresti v. State, 2 Md.App. ......
  • Butina v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • 7 Junio 1968
    ...convicted on a charge that he wilfully and maliciously set fire to or burned or caused to be burned the property. See Thornton v. State, 232 Md. 542, 544, 194 A.2d 617; Veney v. State, 225 Md. 237, 238, 170 A.2d 171. We do not find it to be the law of this State, that an accused must be spe......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT