Summary
In McCoy v. State, 236 Md. 632, the Court said, at 633: "Of course, there is no appeal from a denial of a new trial, absent abuse of discretion * * *."
Summary of this case from Pinkney v. StateOpinion
[No. 69, September Term, 1964.]
Decided November 13, 1964.
CRIMINAL LAW — Written Confessions — Claim That They Were Not Admissible Rejected — No Request For Lawyer Made At Time Of Interrogation — Claim Of Coercion And Beating By Officers Denied. p. 633
CRIMINAL LAW — Armed Robbery — Larceny — Evidence Held Sufficient — There Was Proof Of Corpus Delicti, Implication By Co-defendant In Both Crimes And Identification By Robbery Victim — Pawn Tickets For Stolen Goods Found In Possession Of Accused. p. 633
NEW TRIALS — No Appeal From Denial Of, Absent Abuse Of Discretion — Claim Of Newly Discovered Evidence Deemed A Problem Of Recanting Witness. p. 633
S.K.S.
Decided November 13, 1964.
Appeal from the Criminal Court of Baltimore (SODARO, J.).
Randolph P. McCoy was convicted on separate occasions of armed robbery and larceny, and from the judgments entered thereon and from the denial of motions for new trials, in the respective cases, he appealed.
Reporter's Note: Certiorari denied, 380 U.S. 986.
The cause was argued before HENDERSON, C.J., and HAMMOND, HORNEY, SYBERT and OPPENHEIMER, JJ.
Howard J. Needle for the appellant.
Robert J. Martineau, Assistant Attorney General, with whom were Thomas B. Finan, Attorney General, William J. O'Donnell and Robert Freeze, State's Attorney and Assistant State's Attorney, respectively, for Baltimore City, on the brief, for the appellee.
The appellant, convicted of armed robbery and larceny (on separate occasions) contends on appeal that his written confessions were not admissible, that the evidence was insufficient, and that a new trial should have been granted on the basis of newly discovered evidence. We find no merit in any of these contentions. McCoy never requested a lawyer at the time of his interrogation, and this distinguishes Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478. Cf. Sturgis v. State, 235 Md. 343, 346, and Parker v. Warden, 236 Md. 236, 203 A.2d 418. His claim of coercion and beating by the officers was denied. Cf. Williams v. State, 236 Md. 609, 203 A.2d 268. There was proof of the corpus delicti in both cases. In addition, McCoy was identified by the robbery victim and implicated by his codefendant in both crimes. Cf. Stewart v. State, 235 Md. 210. Pawn tickets for the stolen goods were found in the possession of the accused. Of course, there is no appeal from a denial of a new trial, absent abuse of discretion and we find none. As we have often remarked, the problem of the recanting witness is not new. It clearly cannot be resolved in this appeal. Sturgis v. State, supra, and cases cited.
Judgments affirmed.