Williams v. State
| Decision Date | 25 October 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 60,60 |
| Citation | 164 A.2d 467,223 Md. 339 |
| Parties | Leroy WILLIAMS and Michael Ervin v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
George H. Rosedom, Baltimore (Brown, Allen & Watts, Baltimore, on the brief), for appellants.
James H. Norris, Jr., Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen. (C. Ferdinand Sybert, Atty. Gen., Saul A. Harris and Howard Reamer, State's Atty. and Asst. State's Atty. of Baltimore City, respectively, Baltimore, on the brief), for appellee.
Before BRUNE, C. J., and HENDERSON, HAMMOND, PRESCOTT and HORNEY, JJ.
The defendants were convicted on a charge of assault with intent to rob. They appeal on the grounds of (i) insufficiency of evidence, (ii) conflicting statements of witnesses, and (iii) lack of positive identification of the defendants.
The evidence showed that the arrest was made at the scene of the crime, that the victim had screamed for help, that he and the two defendants were found together in a doorway when the police arrived in response to his cries for help; that when the police arrived the defendants somewhat hastily returned to the victim some articles of clothing which he said he had just bought nearby. A wallet said to have contained $6 was not found.
We think the evidence was ample to sustain the convictions. The alleged contradictions were of no consequence and, in any event, the credibility of the witnesses was a matter for the trier of the facts. In the light of the circumstances of the arrest, the alleged lack of identification is without merit.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Price v. State
...general statement of facts which we set out below. We therefore hold this contention of the appellant to be untenable. Williams v. State, 223 Md. 339, 340, 164 A.2d 467; Mason v. State, 225 Md. 74, 76, 169 A.2d 445; Dyson v. State, 226 Md. 18, 21, 171 A.2d We now turn to the first and princ......
-
Hill v. State
...only state that the matter of credibility of witnesses is primarily one for the trier of facts to determine. Rule 886 a, Williams v. State, 223 Md. 339, 164 A.2d 467. Finding no reversible error, we must affirm the court Judgments affirmed. ...
- Palmer v. State
-
Mason v. State, 223
...and the credibility of the witnesses was, in any event, a matter for consideration by the trier of the facts. Williams v. State, 223 Md. 339, 340, 164 A.2d 467; Bush v. State, Stabbing a man with an eight-inch knife at a point within two inches of his heart is sufficient to sustain a charge......