Wilkins v. State, 133
| Decision Date | 18 December 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 133,133 |
| Parties | Samuel Edward WILKINS v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Samuel M. Campanaro, Baltimore, for appellant.
Thomas B. Finan Atty. Gen., Franklin Goldstein, Asst. Atty. Gen., William J. O'Donnell and George J. Helinski, State's Atty. and Asst. State's Atty., respectively, for Baltimore City, Baltimore, for appellee.
Before PRESCOTT, C. J., and HORNEY, MARBURY, SYBERT and OPPENHEIMER, JJ.
The appellant, found guilty by the court sitting without a jury of assault, robbery, robbery with a dangerous weapon, and larceny, after he had held up a grocery store owner at gun point and taken some four hundred seventy dollars from the cash register, argues on appeal that his arrest was illegal, he was not provided with a lawyer at the preliminary hearing before a magistrate, the State failed to prove the ownership of the money taken, his motion for a directed verdict on the larceny count of the indictment should have been granted, and the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction.
There is no substance to any of the contentions. The arrest would appear to have been entirely legal (probable cause to believe that the appellant had committed a felony could reasonably have been believed by the arresting officer who was told by the victim of the details, including a description of the robber and his usual 'hang-outs,' a description of the female who accompanied the robber, the apprehension of the female and then, after the receipt of information from her, the arrest of the appellant). However, in any event, no evidence resulting from the arrest was received into evidence against the accused, except his statement to the police, to which, at the trial, he made no objection as evidence and which, indeed, he expressly conceded was voluntarily made (probably because it was to a large extent, exculpatory); so that the illegality of the arrest, if illegality there was, was immaterial.
The appellant pleaded not guilty before the magistrate and therefore no constitutional right of his was violated because he was not then represented by counsel. Arrington v. Warden, 232 Md. 672, 195 A.2d 38; Simms v. Warden, 234 Md. 652, 200 A.2d 149; and DeToro v Pepersack, 332 F.2d 341 (4th Cir.). Appellant did not below and does not here claim that he asked for counsel while he was in police custody or that his statement was inadmissible against him because it was made while he had no lawyer and, although that point is not before us, Md. Rule 885, if it were, the Escobedo...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hodgson
...Court of Appeals of Maryland recently expressed the view that an arrest under comparable circumstances was legal. See Wilkins v. State, Md., 205 A.2d 593 (Ct.App.1964); cf. Ralph v. Pepersack, supra, 335 F.2d at pp. 132--133; but cf. Beck v. State of Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 85 S.Ct. 223, 13 L.Ed......
-
State v. Melrose
...It is the admission of evidence obtained incident to or as a result of the arrest that can upset the conviction. Wilkins v. State, 237 Md. 617, 205 A.2d 593 (1964). The overall effect of our decisions is that in the absence of the arrested person's consent, articles taken from the person un......
-
Campbell v. State, 305
...418 (1964); Green v. State, 236 Md. 334, 203 A.2d 870 (1964); McCoy v. State, 236 Md. 632, 204 A.2d 565, 566 (1964); Wilkins v. State, 237 Md. 617, 205 A.2d 593 (1964); and Ramsey v. State, Md., 212 A.2d 319 (September Term, 1964, filed July 29, 1965). As Chief Judge Prescott, for the Court......
-
Appeal No. 504 September Term, 1974 from Circuit Court of Baltimore City Sitting as a Juvenile Court, In re
...v. State, 1 Md.App. 304, 307, 229 A.2d 598. It is material when 'fruits' of the arrest are received in evidence. Wilkins v. State, 237 Md. 617, 618, 205 A.2d 593; Hammond and Couser v. State, 7 Md.App. 588, 594-595, 256 A.2d 768; Hutchinson v. State, 1 Md.App. 362, 369, 230 A.2d 352. Appell......