Summary
reasoning that an eyewitness identification was sufficient to sustain a robbery conviction, despite a variance between the date alleged in the indictment and the date shown in the testimony
Summary of this case from Crispino v. StateOpinion
[No. 397, September Term, 1963.]
Decided September 23, 1964.
ROBBERY — Evidence Held Sufficient To Convict — Unshaken Identification By Eyewitness To Crime. p. 607
CRIMINAL LAW — Robbery Case — Claim Of Fatal Variance Without Merit — State Not Confined In Its Proof To Date Alleged In Indictment. pp. 607-608
Decided September 23, 1964.
Appeal from the Criminal Court of Baltimore (NILES, C.J.).
James Orlando Chisley was convicted of robbery, by the trial court, sitting without a jury, and from the judgment entered thereon, he was granted a delayed appeal.
Affirmed.
The cause was argued before HENDERSON, C.J., and HAMMOND, PRESCOTT, HORNEY, MARBURY and SYBERT, JJ.
Alan M. Resnick for the appellant.
Dickee M. Howard, Special Attorney, with whom were Thomas B. Finan, Attorney General, Stuart H. Rome, Assistant Attorney General, and William J. O'Donnell, State's Attorney for Baltimore City, on the brief, for the appellee.
The appellant, convicted of robbery, challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and claims a fatal variance between the date alleged in the indictment and the date shown in the testimony. We find the evidence sufficient. Although the victim's identification was open to some question, because of an apparent failure to identify on one occasion, there was an unshaken identification by an eyewitness to the crime. The cases make it clear that the State was not confined in its proof to the date alleged in the indictment. Fulton v. State, 223 Md. 531, 532, and cases cited. See also Maryland Rule 712 a, superseding Code (1957), Art. 27, § 606.
Judgment affirmed.