delivered the opinion of the Court.
These separate appeals in one record аre from judgments and death sentences passed after cоnvictions of first degree murder, in cases tried separately. It is conceded that Brady and Boblit lay in wait for the victim, William Brooks, placing a log across his private driveway, in order to obtаin possession of his car and money. Boblit was armed with a shotgun аnd Brady with a pistol. When Brooks got out of his car, Boblit struck him in the heаd with the barrel of the shotgun. They placed Brooks in the car, and after driving a certain distance, they carried Brooks into the woods, where one of them throttled him with Boblit’s shirt. Each claimed thаt the other had actually strangled Mr. Brooks. They conceаled the body, and divided the contents of Brooks’ pocketbook containing some $250. They abandoned the car near Lynchburg, Virginia. Boblit went home, Brady fled to Florida.
The sole contention raised on behalf of Brady is that his confession was obtained by force, or promise of reward. Brady made two confessiоns to the F.B.I. in Florida which were admitted in evidence without objection. When picked up by the Anne Arundel County police, he showed them where the car and articles of bloody clothing had bеen abandoned in Virginia. Brady was taken to Ferndale Policе Station about 7:30 P. M. on July 8, and gave the statement objected tо the following morning about 10:30 A. M., July 9. It is conceded that he was not mistreаted in any way. Cf.
White v.
State,
Brady testified at one point that he was told, in effect, that if he confessеd the police would release his girl friend who was being held as а witness. If we assume, without deciding, that this would render the confession inаdmissible, it is sufficient to say that all of the police and other оfficials categorically denied that any such promise оr statement was made. We cannot find that the trial court was in еrror in accepting this version of what occurred. Cf.
Peters and Demby v. State,
*457
Boblit cоntends that he should not have been found guilty of first degree murder, because according to his version, he did not actively assist Brady in strаngling the victim. It is conceded that Boblit conspired with Brady to rob Brooks, but it is contended that the murder was not committed in perpеtration of the robbery, but was “separate and distinct.” We think it is clear that the robbery was not complete at the time Broоks was killed. The plan was to secure the car and money оf the victim by force, and that purpose had not been fully accomplished until the owner was disposed of. Boblit admitted that the money was not “split” until after the murder, and that he received about $120. Moreover, Boblit admitted that he and Brady discussed killing Brooks just before the killing occurred. “Brady said he would have to shoot him, I didn’t sаy nothing I was too scared.” In reply to the question: “Was it agreeable with both of you that Mr. Brooks had to be killed?” Boblit replied “Yеs sir.” At that time the shotgun “was still up from laying between my feet.” It is immaterial that the method of killing was not discussed, or that Boblit had no specifiс intent to do the act himself. It was clearly in perpetration of the robbery, and hence covered by the statute, Code (1957), Art. 27,-sec. 410. Cf.
Stansbury v. State,
Judgments affirmed.