Supreme Court of Maryland, 1964

HENN AND JOHNSON v. State

HENN AND JOHNSON v. State
Supreme Court of Maryland · Decided October 15, 1964 · Henderson, Prescott, Marbury, Syblrt, Opplnhlimbr
203 A.2d 899; 236 Md. 615; 1964 Md. LEXIS 928 (Atlantic Reporter, Second Series)
HENN AND JOHNSON v. State

Cases that cite this one

2 later published cases cite this decision. The 1 that cite it most often are listed here.

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

Per Curiam.

These appellants, convicted of attempted robbery, contend that their confessions were inadmissible, the evidence was insufficient, and counsel was inadequate. We find no merit in any of these contentions. The State met its burden of proving voluntariness, and there was independent proof, through circumstantial evidence, of the corpus delicti. See Veney v. State, 225 Md. 237. We distinguish Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, *616 on the ground that neither Henn nor Johnson requested counsel or were denied an opportunity to consult counsel prior to their brief interrogation.

Johnson’s claim that he was entitled to a preliminary hearing is without merit. See Shorey v. State, 227 Md. 385. The fact that counsel had not been appointed at the first arraignment is immaterial. No plea was taken, and there was a subsequent arraignment at a later date after the appointment of counsel.

Judgments affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.