Chisley v. State

236 Md. 607 (1964) · Maryland Court of Appeals

Maryland Court of AppealsDisposition: Affirmed✓ Good law

HoldingThe appellant was convicted of robbery and appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and asserting a fatal variance between the date alleged in the indictment and the date established by the testimony.

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 ⁶⁰⁸ 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, sec. 606. Judgment affirmed.