Appellants, a brother and sister, were charged with two counts of robbery with a dangerous weapon, in violation of Maryland Code (2002 Repl. Vol. 2012), §3-403 of the Criminal Law Article [hereinafter “Crim. Law”]; two counts of robbery, in violation of Crim. Law §3-402; two counts of second degree assault, in violation of Crim. Law §3-203; two counts of theft, in violation of Crim. Law §7-104; and one count of conspiracy to commit robbery with a dangerous weapon, in violation of the common law. Following a
jury trial in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County, appellants were convicted.
Appellants appealed, and present three questions for our review:
I. Did the trial court err in refusing to either grant a continuance so that an elderly infirm alibi witness could appear or permit the witness to appear remotely via two-way video conferencing?
II. Did the trial court err in permitting the State to elicit an in-court identification of both appellants on re-direct examination when in-court identification was not raised on direct examination and was outside the scope of cross examination?
III. Was the evidence sufficient to convict [a]ppellant Idowu of counts 1, 5 and 9 and [a]ppellant Mary of Count 9?