Agresti v. State
Decision Date | 27 October 1967 |
Docket Number | No. 211,211 |
Citation | 2 Md.App. 278,234 A.2d 284 |
Parties | Francis Anthony AGRESTI v. STATE of Maryland. |
Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
H. Thomas Sisk, Kensington, M. Michael Cramer, Washington, D. C., on the brief, for appellant.
Jon F. Oster, Asst. Atty. Gen., Baltimore, for appellee, Francis B. Burch, Atty. Gen., Baltimore, and William A. Linthicum, Jr., State's Atty. for Montgomery County, Rockville, on the brief.
Before MORTON, ORTH and THOMPSON, JJ., and J. DUDLEY DIGGES, Special Judge.
The appellant was convicted of robbery with a deadly weapon by a jury in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Judge James H. Pugh, presiding, and sentenced to imprisonment for a term of 20 years.
The case went to the jury on the first, third, fifth and ninth counts of the information filed against the appellant. The first count, on which he was convicted, charged robbery with a deadly weapon. The third count charged attempted robbery with a deadly weapon. The fifth count charged robbery. The ninth count charged grand larceny.
At the close of all the evidence the appellant moved for a directed verdict (which we consider a motion for judgment of acquittal, Md. Rules, 755 a) 'as to all counts' and the motion was denied. We think the trial court erred in denying the motion as to the first count. 1
While participants in treason and misdemanors, if liable, are all punishable as principals, parties to a felony are classified, at common law, as principals or accessories. Principals in the first degree are those who commit the deed as perpetrating actors, either by their own hand or by the hand of an innocent agent. Under common law, persons present, actually or constructively, aiding and abetting the commission of the crime, but not themselves committing it, are principals in the second degree, provided there is a guilty principal in the first degree. Accessories before the fact are those persons who procure, counsel, or command the deed perpetrated, but who are not present, actively or constructively, at such perpetration. Accessories after the fact are those who receive, comfort or assist a felon knowing that he has committed a felony. Clark and Marshall, Crimes, Sixth Edition, § 8.00; Camphor v. State, 233 Md. 203, 205, 196 A.2d 75 ( ); Thornton v. State, 232 Md. 542, 544, 194 A.2d 617 ( ); Veney v. State, 225 Md. 237, 238, 170 A.2d 171 ('lookout' is principal); Vincent v. State, 220 Md. 232, 239, 151 A.2d 898 ( ); Coleman v. State, 209 Md. 379, 384, 121 A.2d 254 (principal in misdemeanors); Watson v. State, 208 Md. 210, 217-218, 117 A.2d 549 ( ); Wimpling v. State, 171 Md. 362, 369, 189 A. 248 ( ); Davis v. State, 38 Md. 15, 46 ( ). An accessory at common law may be made a principal by statute. Thus one who aids, counsels or procures the burning of a dwelling house is guilty of arson, Md.Code Art. 27, § 6 , and one who aids, abets and counsels the breaking of a dwelling house in the nighttime with intent to steal is guilty of burglary, Code, supra, Art. 27, § 30. Except as otherwise provided by statute, Maryland recognizes the distinction between principal and accessory, even though Watson v. State, supra, 208 Md. at page 218-219, 117 A.2d at page 552, quoting 1 Bishop, Criminal Law, 9th Ed., §§ 673 and 692.
Although at common law an accessory before the fact is liable to the same punishment as the principal, the distinction between them is important in practice unless the distinction has been changed by statute. At common law, an indictment must charge a person correctly as principal or accessory according to the facts and on an indictment charging a person as principal there could be no conviction on evidence showing that he was merely an accessory and vice versa. Clark and Marshall, Crimes, supra, § 8.05, p. 462; Sanders v. State, 1 Md.App. 630, 232 A.2d 555. It is stated in Perkins on Criminal Law (1957), ch. 6, § 8, D, 1 b, page 583:
Md.Code, supra, Art. 27, § 488 provides:
'Every person convicted of the crime of robbery or attempt to rob with a dangerous or deadly weapon or accessory thereto, shall restore to the owner thereof the thing robbed or taken, or shall pay him the full value thereof, and be sentenced to imprisonment in the Maryland Penitentiary for not more than twenty years.'
We cannot read into this language that an accessory to the crimes of robbery or attempt to rob with a deadly weapon is made a principal. Even if it be assumed that an accessory is made a principal thereby, the statute contains no reference to the manner of charging the offense, but provides only for punishment and restoration of the thing taken. As stated in Clark and Marshall, Crimes, supra, § 8.05, page 463:
2
It is clear that § 488 does not so provide.
The weight of authority in other jurisdictions has long supported the rule that, in the absence of statutory authority, on an indictment charging a person with a felony as a principal there can be no conviction on evidence showing he was merely an accessory. In Smith v. State, 37 Ark. 274 (1881) it was held that a statute which stated that 'one who aids, assists, abets, advises or encourages another in the commission of a crime shall be deemed in law a principal and punished accordingly has no reference to the manner of charging the offense' and one who is an accessory cannot therefore be convicted on an indictment charging him as principal. In People v. Campbell, 40 Cal. 129, at page 130 (1870), the Court said:
'The Legislature may make the offenses of accessory before the fact and of principal identical, as to their punishment, and as to their mode, manner and time of trial, but until it becomes unnecessary to set out in an indictment the offense charged to have been committed we submit and analogy and good pleading demand that an accessory before the fact should no more be convicted upon an indictment charging him as principal, than that a party guilty of larceny shall be convicted upon an indictment charging him with burglary.'
People v. Lyon, 99 N.Y. 210, 1 N.E. 673 (1885), State v. Lacoshus, 96 N.H. 76, 70 A.2d 203 (1950) and State v. Colvin, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bowers v. State
...Thorton v. State, 232 Md. 542, 544, 194 A.2d 617 (1963); Veney v. State, 225 Md. 237, 238, 170 A.2d 171 (1961); Agresti v. State, 2 Md.App. 278, 280, 234 A.2d 284 (1967); 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *34; Clark & Marshall, A Treatise on the Law of Crimes §§ 8.01-8.02 (7th ed. 1967); L. Hoc......
-
State v. Sowell
...Since accessories and principals at common law were deemed to be equally culpable and therefore subject to the same punishment, Agresti v. State, 2 Md.App. at 281, ; 1 J. Chitty, A Practical Treatise on the Criminal Law *267 (1819); Clark & Marshall, A Treatise on the Law of Crimes § 8.05, ......
-
Pope v. State
...Thornton v. State, 232 Md. 542, 544, 194 A.2d 617 (1963); Veney v. State, 225 Md. 237, 238, 170 A.2d 171 (1961); Agresti v. State, 2 Md.App. 278, 280, 234 A.2d 284 (1967); 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries * 34; Clark & Marshall, A Treatise on the Law of Crimes §§ 8.01-8.02 (7th ed. 1967); L. H......
-
Robinson v. State
...evidence or rational inferences therefrom on which the jury could find the appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Agresti v. State, 2 Md.App. 278, 234 A.2d 284. The The appellant was convicted of grand larceny under a count in the indictment presenting that he did feloniously steal $34......