Ewell v. State

209 A.2d 776, 238 Md. 628, 1965 Md. LEXIS 695
CourtCourt of Appeals of Maryland
DecidedMay 6, 1965
DocketNo. 303
StatusPublished

This text of 209 A.2d 776 (Ewell v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Maryland primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ewell v. State, 209 A.2d 776, 238 Md. 628, 1965 Md. LEXIS 695 (Md. 1965).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Court-appointed counsel has made an earnest and sincere effort to be of assistance to the appellant; but the facts render the appeal hopeless from appellant’s side thereof.

He was convicted of breaking and entering and larceny. The only question presented is whether he was convicted on the uncorroborated testimony of accomplices. If we assume, without deciding, that the witness McGowan was an accomplice, there was ample corroborative testimony to support appellant’s conviction. The witness Finklestein definitely was not an accomplice, and his testimony, together with that of the other witnesses adduced by the State, was sufficient to support the conviction.

Judgment and sentence affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
209 A.2d 776, 238 Md. 628, 1965 Md. LEXIS 695, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ewell-v-state-md-1965.