Williams v. State
| Decision Date | 25 September 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 476,476 |
| Citation | 256 A.2d 776,7 Md.App. 683 |
| Parties | Marshall Henry WILLIAMS v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Calvin R. Sanders, Rockville, for appellant.
Dickee M. Howard, Asst. Atty. Gen., with whom were Francis B. Burch, Atty. Gen., William A. Linthicum, and D. Warren Donohue, State's Atty., and Asst. State's Atty. for Montgomery County, on the brief, for appellee.
Before MURPHY, C. J., and ANDERSON, MORTON, ORTH and THOMPSON, JJ.
The appellant was convicted of robbery in a non-jury trial in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County and sentenced to a term of ten years.
The victim testified that as she was leaving a bank, carrying a pocketbook on her arm and a small, blue zipper bag containing $90 in change under her coat, she was approached by a Negro who 'grabbed my pocketbook.' In doing so, both the zipper bag and the pocketbook fell to the ground. The assailant picked up the zipper bag and ran, leaving the pocketbook where it had fallen. She testified that her assailant was wearing a cap, a car coat and large, dark, goggle-like glasses.
Another witness testified that as she was walking toward the bank she heard a lady scream and saw a Negro wearing dark glasses, small hat and car-length coat running toward her from the direction of the screaming woman. She proceeded to hit him with an umbrella she was carrying and knocked him to the ground. According to the witness, he then 'scrambled on his hands and knees and went over the street' into the path of a Volkswagon car which was forced to drive up onto the sidewalk.
Another witness testified that he was working on the second floor of a building near the bank when he heard a woman scream, looked out the window and saw a man, whom he identified in court as the appellant, run from the direction of the screaming woman. He then observed the appellant being knocked down by a woman with an umbrella and almost being hit by a Volkswagon car. He testified that the dark glasses had fallen from the appellant's face, his hat was askew and he had 'a little blue bag' in his hand. While appellant was on the ground, according to the witness, 'I got a look at him, yes, a good look at his face.' He stated that he left the building and next saw the appellant around the corner after he had been apprehended by the police.
The final witness for the State was an off-duty policeman who was driving his private car in the vicinity of the bank when he heard a lady screaming and saw a man running. He stopped his car, gave chase, and when he caught up with the man shouted, 'Halt, police officer.' He drew his service revolver which the man grabbed and, after a struggle the officer subdued the individual and held him until uniformed police officers arrived. He identified the appellant in court as the individual he had apprehended.
It is first contended in this appeal that the act allegedly committed by appellant did not constitute the crime of robbery. We disagree.
Robbery has been defined as larceny from the person, accompanied by violence or putting in fear. Osborne v. State, 4 Md.App. 57, 60, 241 A.2d 171; Harrison v. State, 3 Md.App. 148, 238 A.2d 153. Otherwise stated, robbery is 'the felonious taking and carrying away of the personal property of another, from his person or in his presence, by violence, or by putting him in fear.' Clark and Marshall, Crimes, (6th ed.) § 12.09, p. 781; Darby v. State, 3 Md.App. 407, 413, 239 A.2d 584.
Appellant argues that the subject of the robbery, the money contained in the blue, zipper bag, was not taken from the person of the victim but was picked up after it had fallen to the ground. He asserts, moreover, that the victim's pocketbook was merely 'grabbed' from her possession unaccompanied by any verbal threats or touching of her person, thus arguing, that two elements of the crime of robbery are missing. Although these arguments have a syllogistic ring, we think they are more sophistical than sound.
There is some authority for the proposition that one 'who snatches money or a purse or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dinkins v. State
...and hard-hats were found in the vehicle.11 The trial judge gave the jury a definition of robbery in accord with Williams v. State, 7 Md.App. 683, 685, 256 A.2d 776 (1969). He also charged that possession of the stolen goods 'must be personal and with a distinct assertion of the right to exe......
-
Burko v. State
...robbery.' Cooper v. State, 9 Md.App. 478, 265 A.2d 569 (1970); Giles v. State, 8 Md.App. 721, 261 A.2d 806 (1970); Williams v. State, 7 Md.App. 683, 256 A.2d 776 (1969). Appellant argues that the trial judge's advisory instructions to the jury that the law 'presumes that in the absence of j......
-
Cooper v. State
...by violence. Gray v. State, 10 Md.App. 478, 480, 271 A.2d 390; Wiggins v. State, 8 Md.App. 598, 603, 261 A.2d 503. See Williams v. State, 7 Md.App. 683, 256 A.2d 776. It is correct that there can be no robbery without a larcenous intent, which, of course, may be determined from the words, a......
-
Spencer v. State
...West. See Raiford v. State, 52 Md.App. 163, 447 A.2d 496 (1982); Cooper v. State, 9 Md.App. 478, 265 A.2d 569 (1970); Williams v. State, 7 Md.App. 683, 256 A.2d 776 (1969). The Court in West relied particularly on Cooper v. State, supra, 9 Md.App. 478, 265 A.2d 569, a case in which a convic......