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?
Tagged with: conspiracy Hotten Prince George's County robbery Sept. Term 2013 sufficiency of the evidence
Read More »