Jones v. State
Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
1Opinion of the CourtOrth, J.
ESTABLISHING CRIMINAL AGENCY
The criminal agency of an accused may be proved directly, as for example by his identification by the victim, Thomas v. State, 8 Md. App. 5, or an eyewitness, Pinkney v. State, 9 Md. App. 283, or circumstantially, as for example by his possession of stolen goods.* 1 The identification of an accused by the victim or an eyewitness may be made judicially or extra judicially. A judicial identifi cation is admissible if it was not tainted by an illegal extrajudicial identification or even if there was an illegal extrajudicial identification, upon the State showing by…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- United States v. WadeSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Simmons v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Stovall v. DennoSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Smith v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1969
- Kucharczyk v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1964
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Pittman v. Atlantic Realty Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 2000
- State v. LawlessCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1971
- Bailey v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1972
- DeLilly v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1971
- King v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1973
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.