Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

CHISLEY v. STATE

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.

PER CURIAM.

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.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

CHISLEY v. STATE
(Sep 23, 1964)