Jones v. State

Orth, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Albert Darrell Jones (appellant) was found guilty of robbery by a jury in the Criminal Court of Baltimore. He claims that two judicial identifications of him were so tainted by a pretrial confrontation of him by the identifying witness as to render the judicial identifications inadmissible; he questions the procedure followed in the lower court with respect to the identification evidence; he urges that he was prejudiced by remarks of the trial judge; and he contends that the evidence was not sufficient to sustain the conviction. The Admissibility of the Judicial Identification Prior to trial, upon a full evidentiary hearing, the lower court denied appellant’s motion to exclude evidence of identification. * 1 The victim of the robbery and an eye ⁴⁵⁷ witness to the crime each made a positive in-court identification of appellant as the robber.

The question of the admissibility of this evidence is not before us because it came in without objection made when it was offered. We pointed out in Smith and Samuels v. State, 6 Md. App. 59, 67-68 , that evidence of identity of a defendant may be challenged by a motion to exclude or suppress such evidence made before or during trial or by an objection to the evidence when it is offered. Maryland Rules 725, 522. But this does not mean that because a motion to exclude or suppress such evidence is denied, the objection to the evidence is preserved on appeal.

Further objection must be made to the introduction of the evidence at the trial on the general issue as required by Rule 522 d 2. Under the dictates of that Rule objection must be made at the time such evidence is offered, or as soon thereafter as the objection to its admissibility shall have become apparent. Otherwise objection shall be treated as waived. 2 As no objection was made by appellant when the in-court identifications were offered, or thereafter, objection to such evidence was waived, and the question of their admissibility is not before us. ⁴⁵⁸ The Procedure at Trial Appellant urges that when a judicial identification is challenged on the ground that it is tainted by an extrajudicial identification, the State is obliged to present the circumstances surrounding the extrajudicial identification to the jury. The point was squarely presented in Smith and Samuels v. State, supra, and resolved.

We held, for the reasons therein set out, that it was not the obligation of the State to put before the trier of fact evidence of a pretrial identification. Id. at 69-70 . See also Watson v. State, 7 Md. App. 225, 234 ; Bailey v. State, 6 Md. App. 496, 506 . Here, in any event, evidence that the witnesses identifying appellant at trial failed to identify him at a lineup or by viewing of photographs, and did identify him at the preliminary hearing, was before the jury, adduced in part by the State and in part by appellant.

Appellant now complains that the jury were not told expressly that if they found “the pre-trial confrontation * * * to be tainted, [they] could exclude that part of the evidence as a matter of law.” But no such instruction was requested and no objection was made to the failure to give such a charge. Rule 756, §§ f and g. Remarks of the Trial Judge At the conclusion of the testimony of William Silvers, age 15 years, called by the State, the court said: “Incidentally, if anybody bothers you because of the testimony that you have given, you come in here and let Mr. Harlan (Assistant State’s Attorney) know.” Appellant argues that these remarks require that the judgment be reversed. The transcript reads : “MR.

GERTZ (defense counsel) : If your Honor pleases, I don’t know whether or not the jury would take from that remark that any threats were made or anything of that order. This was not so. THE COURT: Well, I’m not suggesting that ⁴⁵⁹ there were. I’m only saying that for the protection of this witness, if anybody disturbs him, I want to know about it.

MR. GERTZ: No, if your Honor pleases — this may be prejudicial to the jury. THE COURT: Let me see counsel for a moment, please. (Whereupon, a Bench-Bar Conference was held out of the presence of the jury as follows : THE COURT: The only thing that I said to this boy was that if anybody bothered him because of his testimony he was to let Mr. Harlan know.

Now, you have made a big deal about it. You have now called it to the attention — well, do you want a mistrial ? MR. GERTZ: No, I don’t want a mistrial.

THE COURT: What do you want? MR. GERTZ: Just the fact that there were no threats or anything made to this witness. THE COURT: All right.

I will tell the jury about that. MR. GERTZ: Because I raised the question, because this kid was the one who said he could get him a hundred and twenty years. MR.

HARLAN: Your Honor and Mr. Gertz, I make the