Baynard v. State

P#r Curiam. The appellant was found guilty on a general verdict by a jury in the Circuit Court for Talbot County of robbery with a deadly weapon, robbery, and assault with a deadly weapon. He was sentenced to twelve years in the Maryland Penitentiary. The facts adduced at the trial established that at approximately 10:10 p.m. on December 13, 1965 the Whispering Pines Liquor Store south of Trappe, Maryland was robbed by four men, one of whom was armed with a sawed-off shotgun.

Upon their departure, Mr. Francis Bryan, the store’s clerk, reported the incident by telephone to the Maryland State Police and the Talbot County Sheriff’s Office. Acting on this information, Sergeant Donald E. Weir of the Maryland State Police set up roadblocks at three locations, one on Route 50 at which he remained. A truck and a Cadillac car containing four Negro males had been stopped at this roadblock when the 1960 Ford in which appellant was riding with three male companions was halted. Observing the four men, some sweaters and a “parka” on the back seat of the car, and some whiskey on the floor, Sergeant Weir, acting on the strength of the information given him by Bryan, arrested them on suspicion of armed robbery.

The suspects were searched and removed to the Easton Barracks of the Maryland State Police where the appellant was identified by Mr. Bryan in a line-up as one of the robbers. Corporal Vernon T. Bledsoe then took the appellant and his companions back to their car and conducted a search of the vehicle which disclosed incriminating evidence. At appellant’s trial, Corporal Bledsoe testified, without objection, as to his search of the car and the results thereof. Appellant’s initial contention is that the search was illegal and consequently Corporal Bledsoe’s testimony concerning the ⁷⁰⁴ results of his search of the car was improperly admitted by the court below.

This contention, however, is not properly before us on appeal, and we decline to consider it, as there was no objection to the introduction of the evidence. To preserve an issue on appeal in regard, to the admissibility of evidence, there must be an objection made to the question eliciting the allegedly objectionable answer, Culver v. State, 1 Md. App. 406 . The rule is not different where evidence alleged to be illegally seized is involved, since Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643 , recognized that State procedural requirements to raise or preserve the question may still be respected.