Williams v. State
Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
101 Md. App. 408, 646 A.2d 1101 (1994)
- Written by Jamie Milne, JD
Facts
Marvin Williams (defendant) borrowed money from the brother of Chuckie Eubanks, a well-known drug dealer. To help pay off his debt, Williams participated in two drug runs to New York for the Eubanks organization. At a later date, Williams was abducted by three men who believed Williams knew the location of Eubanks’s drug stash. According to Williams, the men threatened to kill Williams if he did not divulge the location of the drugs. Although Williams informed his abductors that he was unaware of the drugs’ location, Williams eventually led his abductors to the home of Chris Hale. When Hale opened his door in response to Williams’s knock, the three abductors and Williams pushed into Hale’s apartment. One of the abductors put a gun to Hale’s head and demanded that Hale tell them where the drugs were. The three abductors and Williams searched the apartment for drugs but did not find any. After the unsuccessful search, the abductors held both Williams and Hale at gunpoint while they interrogated them. Eventually, the abductors and Williams left Hale’s apartment without taking anything. Williams was convicted of (1) daytime housebreaking, (2) attempted robbery with a deadly weapon, and (3) use of a handgun in committing a violent crime. Williams appealed on the ground that he was acting under duress.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Alpert, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
