Gibson v. State

²²⁴ Per Curiam. Walter Nathaniel Gibson, the appellant, was convicted of two cases of robbery with a dangerous and deadly weapon and one of carrying a concealed weapon, in the Criminal Court of Baltimore, Judge Charles D. Harris presiding without a jury. Gibson contends that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdicts. The evidence adduced at the trial showed that on the night of November 13, 1966, two taxicabs were robbed by two men.

The first cab robbed was operated by Thomas Winkey who identified Gibson as one of the two men he picked up that night near Pennsylvania Avenue and Mosher Street. Winkey testified that when he arrived at their destination, Gibson, who was sitting in the front, pulled out a revolver and demanded his money. Gibson and his companion took $25.00 in bills and coins plus some .22 caliber bullets from Winkey’s change purse. After the two men departed, Winkey reported the incident along with a description of the two men to his dispatcher.

A short time later a second taxicab operated by William Henry was robbed in much the same manner as was the first cab except that Gibson sat in the rear and his companion sat in the front. They took about $22.00, approximately $3.00 being in change. Henry reported the robbery to the first policeman he saw. A few minutes later at approximately 9:30 P.M. Officer Fischer and his partner received a broadcast on the police radio describing the two hold up men, as two colored males wearing long black leather jackets, age 19-23.

The broadcast also stated that two men were walking south on Howard Street from Centre. Fischer testified that “[w]e proceeded north on Howard Street and they were the only two fellows right on that street and they fit the description perfectly.” The policemen then placed the two men under arrest. A search revealed that Gibson’s companion, Edward Williams, was carrying a 7.25 caliber Beretta automatic pistol. A more thorough search at the station house uncovered that Williams was carrying $4.40 in change and $47.00 in bills while Gibson had nine .22 caliber cartridges and $3.00 in bills. ²²⁵ Winkey identified Gibson in a line-up and identified him again in court.

Henry identified Williams in a line-up and in court he identified both men. Mr. Winkey described the two robbers as light skinned negroes, 5 foot 10, 150 pounds wearing long black leather coats, one had a bumpy face or needed a shave, age 19-23. Mr. Henry’s description was similar except that he described them as dark complected, 145 pounds, age 21-24. To bolster his complaint of insufficiency of the evidence, Gibson contends that the arrest was illegal and that there was a lack of identification.

An illegal arrest in and of itself would not vitiate the trial, Boone v. State, 3 Md. App. 11, 30 , 237 A. 2d 787 , but we have no difficulty in holding that the arrest was legal. The evidence seized 1 incident to the arrest was admitted over objection made by appellant’s counsel, but only the issue of the legality of the arrest insofar as it affected the legality of the trial itself was raised on appeal. The State has the burden of establishing the existence of probable cause necessary to justify his arrest, Hutchinson v. State, 1 Md. App. 362, 369 , 230 A. 2d 352 . In order for a policeman to arrest a person for a felony ²²⁶ without a warrant he “must have reasonable grounds or probable cause