Booker v. State

¹⁸⁵ Per Curiam. The defendant-appellant (Leon Booker) was tried and convicted on separate indictments by the Criminal Court of Baltimore, sitting without a jury, of two armed robberies. This appeal is from the judgments imposed. The principal contention in each case is that there was insufficient evidence to sustain a conviction because there was no definitive identification of the defendant as the robber.

In the case involving the robbery of the Gay Bar, the operator testified that he was robbed by two men and positively identified the appellant as the man who had held the weapon during the hold-up. And, the barmaid, though unable to positively identify him, testified that the appellant looked like the robber. We have repeatedly held—since the weight of the evidence and the credibility of the witness are matters for the trial court to determine—that identification by a single eye-witness, if believed, is sufficient to' support a conviction. Booth v. State, 225 Md. 71 , 169 A. 2d 388 (1961); Brown v. State, 222 Md. 312, 160 A. 2d 95 (1960).

The argument that the identification was not corroborated is without merit. Unlike the testimony of an accomplice, the testimony of a victim requires no corroboration. Cf. Walls v. State, 220 Md. 115 , 150 A. 2d 926 (1959).

Since the conviction in the Gay Bar case was supported by substantial evidence, we are unable to say that the verdict of the trial court was “clearly erroneous,” and we must affirm. Maryland Rule 741 c. In the case concerning the hold-up of the People’s Grocery, the proprietor testified with varying degrees of certainty when questioned as to whether or not the appellant was one of the two men who had robbed her, but near the end of her testimony, in response to a question by the court, she stated unequivocally that “this [the appellant] is the man who did hold me up.” And, in addition to the eye-witness identification, the State produced