midpage

Jones v. StateJones v. State

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
Nov 10, 1967
291, Initial Term, 1967
Reporters:
, ,
Before:
Murphy
Per Curiam.

Appellant was convicted of robbery with a deadly weapon, and assault with intent to murder, in the Criminal Court of Baltimore by Judge James K. ‍‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌​​‌‌‌​​​‌​‌‌​‌​​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​​‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​‌​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‍Cullen, sitting without a jury. He was sentenced to terms of twenty and ten years, respectively, in the Maryland Penitentiary, the sentences to run concurrently. Appellant contends on this appeal (1) that the testimony of the State’s rebuttal witnesses was improperly admitted, and (2) that the evidence was not legally sufficient ‍‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌​​‌‌‌​​​‌​‌‌​‌​​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​​‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​‌​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‍to support the conviction.

It is well established that any competent evidence which explains, or is a direct reply to, or a contradiction of, material *373 evidence introduced by the accused may be produced by the prosecution in rebuttal, and that which constitutes rebuttal testimony in a criminal prosecution is a matter resting largely ‍‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌​​‌‌‌​​​‌​‌‌​‌​​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​​‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​‌​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‍in the sound discretion of the trial court. Lane v. State, 226 Md. 81, 90, and cases therein cited. Here, appellant’s defense was that he was not at the scene of the crime. The State’s rebuttal testimony consisted of eyewitnesses who testified that appellant was at the scene and, in fact, committed ‍‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌​​‌‌‌​​​‌​‌‌​‌​​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​​‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​‌​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‍the act. This evidence tended to contradict the defense, and its admission as rebuttal testimony was not improper.

Appellant’s second contention, concerning the sufficiency of the evidence, is likewise unfounded. Appellant was identified as the perpetrator of the robbery by three eyewitnesses. Identification by a single eyewitness, if believed by the trier ‍‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌​​‌‌‌​​​‌​‌‌​‌​​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​​‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​‌​​‌‌​​‌​​​‌‍of facts, is sufficient to support a conviction. Bennett and Flynn v. State, 237 Md. 212; Hutchinson v. State, 1 Md. App. 362.

The identification here clearly supports the conviction.

Judgment affirmed~

Case Details

Case Name: Jones v. State
Court Name: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
Date Published: Nov 10, 1967
Citations: 234 A.2d 614; 2 Md. App. 371; 1967 Md. App. LEXIS 258; 291, Initial Term, 1967
Docket Number: 291, Initial Term, 1967
Court Abbreviation: Md. Ct. Spec. App.
Log In