State v. Smith

POMEROY, Justice.

Charles Smith, the appellant herein, may have assumed he could commit the crime of robbery without danger of arrest and conviction for the offense because,(a) the victim of this robbery was blind, and(b) the only sighted witness to his crime was his girlfriend who was “in love with him."

If so, how wrong he was !

Not only was he arrested and convicted of the offense in a jury waived trial, but the witnesses against him were the blind victim who identified him through his “audio characteristics” which were “the gritted teeth and the shaky breathing through his teeth," and the…