Opinion
[No. 60, September Term, 1960.]
Decided October 25, 1960.
CRIMINAL LAW — Assault With Intent To Rob — Evidence Held Sufficient To Convict — Credibility Of Witnesses For Trier Of Facts — Lack Of Identification Not Found. In the instant prosecution for assault with intent to rob it was held that the evidence was sufficient to convict; that credibility of witnesses was for the trier of facts; and that a claim of lack of identification was without merit. pp. 339-340
Decided October 25, 1960.
Appeal from the Criminal Court of Baltimore (SODARO, J.).
Leroy Williams and Michael Ervin were convicted of assault with intent to rob and they appealed.
Judgment affirmed.
The cause was argued before BRUNE, C.J., and HENDERSON, HAMMOND, PRESCOTT and HORNEY, JJ.
George H. Rosedom, with whom were Brown, Allen Watts on the brief, for appellants.
James H. Norris, Jr., Special Assistant Attorney General, with whom were C. Ferdinand Sybert, Attorney General, Saul A. Harris and Howard Reamer, State's Attorney and Assistant State's Attorney of Baltimore City, respectively, on the brief, for appellee.
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 six dollars 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.