1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. Md.
  4. 236 Md.
  5. 236 Md. 607 (1964)
 

CHISLEY v. STATE

[No. 397, September Term, 1963.]

236 Md. 607 (1964)

203 A.2d 266

CHISLEY v. STATE

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Decided September 23, 1964.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

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 cause was argued before HENDERSON, C.J., and HAMMOND, PRESCOTT, HORNEY, MARBURY and SYBERT, JJ.

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

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases