Boggs v. State, 207

CourtCourt of Appeals of Maryland
Writing for the CourtSYBERT
Citation179 A.2d 338,228 Md. 168
PartiesOtto O. BOGGS v. STATE of Maryland.
Docket NumberNo. 207,207
Decision Date21 March 1962

Page 168

228 Md. 168
179 A.2d 338
Otto O. BOGGS
v.
STATE of Maryland.
No. 207.
Court of Appeals of Maryland.
March 21, 1962.

Page 169

Morris Lee Kaplan, Baltimore (Frank J. McCourt and Nathan Stern, Baltimore, on the brief), for appellant.

Gerard Wm. Wittstadt, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Thomas B. Finan, Atty. Gen., Saul A. Harris,

Page 170

State's Atty., and Russell J. White, Asst. State's Atty., of Baltimore City, on the brief), for appellee.

Page 169

Before HENDERSON, PRESCOTT, HORNEY, MARBURY and SYBERT, JJ.[179 A.2d 339]

SYBERT, Judge.

The appellant, Otto O. Boggs, appeals from his conviction in a trial without a jury of breaking and entering an apartment with intent to steal, and with stealing, certain property therefrom, he was charged, together with two co-defendants, Dorsey F. Donnan and Samuel Briggs, under a four count indictment, to the first count of which--burglary--Donnan pleaded guilty. Briggs, who pleaded not guilty, was convicted under the fourth count of receiving stolen goods. He took no appeal.

Appellant contends that the trial court erred in refusing to grant his motion for a directed verdict of acquittal, claiming that the evidence was insufficient to sustain a verdict of guilty. His argument is that his conviction resulted from the uncorroborated testimony of Briggs and that since Briggs was an accomplice such testimony would not support a conviction.

Briggs testified at the trial that he first came upon the appellant and Donnan in an alley immediately behind the apartment which had been burglarized and both were either standing or sitting next to the stolen goods. He stated that Donnan approached him and offered to sell the stolen articles to him. While he refused to purchase them, Briggs suggested that he could find a ready market on Pennsylvania Avenue. As a result, Briggs, Donnan and appellant caught a taxi and with goods in hand traveled to the suggested destination where, as the testimony shows, all three were active in seeking to dispose of the goods. Briggs and Donnan were apprehended on Pennsylvania Avenue and as a result of their interrogation Boggs was arrested the next day.

It is unquestionably true that a person accused of crime may not be convicted in this State of the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. Gregoire v. State, 211 Md. 514, 128 A.2d 243 (1957); Coleman v. State, 209 Md. 379, 121 A.2d 254 (1956); Watson v. State, 208 Md. 210, 117 A.2d 549 (1955). However, even if we assume that Briggs, as receiver

Page 171

of the stolen goods, was an accomplice of the appellant, it is well settled that not much in the way of corroboration of the testimony of an accomplice is required. It is not necessary that the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
37 practice notes
  • State v. Jones, No. 52
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • August 28, 2019
    ...State, 261 Md. 371, 377 (1971); Veney v. State, 251 Md. 159, 168-69 (1968); McDowell v. State, 231 Md. 205, 213-14 (1963); Boggs v. State, 228 Md. 168, 170 (1962); Mulcahy v. State, 221 Md. 413, 426-28 (1960); Wright v. State, 219 Md. at 646-47; Nolan v. State, 213 Md. 298, 309 (1957); Wats......
  • Brewer v. Mele, 96
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • December 20, 1972
    ...also the burglar, Anglin v. State, 244 Md. 652, 224 A.2d 668 (1966); Howard v. State, 238 Md. 623, 209 A.2d 604 (1965); Boggs v. State, 228 Md. 168, 179 A.2d 338 (1962); Ponder v. State, 227 Md. 570, 177 A.2d 839 (1962); Oden v. State, 223 Md. 244, 164 A.2d 284 (1960); Butz v. State, 221 Md......
  • Boswell v. State, 138
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • December 30, 1968
    ...v. State, 225 Md. 474, 171 A.2d 244; Dyson v. State, 226 Md. 18, 171 A.2d 505; Ponder v. State, 227 Md. 570, 177 A.2d 839; Boggs v. State, 228 Md. 168, 179 A.2d 338; Stapf v. State, 230 Md. 106, 185 A.2d 496; Brooks v. State, 235 Md. 23, 200 A.2d 177; Matthews v. State, 237 Md. 384, 206 A.2......
  • Schmitt v. State, 0104
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • August 31, 2001
    ...in has the same probative force as if it were competent. And see Martin v. State, 203 Md. 66, 73, 98 A.2d 8 (1953). In Boggs v. State, 228 Md. 168, 172, 179 A.2d 338 (1962), the Court of Appeals was also dealing with the unquestioned admissibility and probative value of unchallenged In addi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
37 cases
  • State v. Jones, No. 52
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • August 28, 2019
    ...State, 261 Md. 371, 377 (1971); Veney v. State, 251 Md. 159, 168-69 (1968); McDowell v. State, 231 Md. 205, 213-14 (1963); Boggs v. State, 228 Md. 168, 170 (1962); Mulcahy v. State, 221 Md. 413, 426-28 (1960); Wright v. State, 219 Md. at 646-47; Nolan v. State, 213 Md. 298, 309 (1957); Wats......
  • Brewer v. Mele, 96
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • December 20, 1972
    ...also the burglar, Anglin v. State, 244 Md. 652, 224 A.2d 668 (1966); Howard v. State, 238 Md. 623, 209 A.2d 604 (1965); Boggs v. State, 228 Md. 168, 179 A.2d 338 (1962); Ponder v. State, 227 Md. 570, 177 A.2d 839 (1962); Oden v. State, 223 Md. 244, 164 A.2d 284 (1960); Butz v. State, 221 Md......
  • Boswell v. State, 138
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • December 30, 1968
    ...v. State, 225 Md. 474, 171 A.2d 244; Dyson v. State, 226 Md. 18, 171 A.2d 505; Ponder v. State, 227 Md. 570, 177 A.2d 839; Boggs v. State, 228 Md. 168, 179 A.2d 338; Stapf v. State, 230 Md. 106, 185 A.2d 496; Brooks v. State, 235 Md. 23, 200 A.2d 177; Matthews v. State, 237 Md. 384, 206 A.2......
  • Schmitt v. State, 0104
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • August 31, 2001
    ...in has the same probative force as if it were competent. And see Martin v. State, 203 Md. 66, 73, 98 A.2d 8 (1953). In Boggs v. State, 228 Md. 168, 172, 179 A.2d 338 (1962), the Court of Appeals was also dealing with the unquestioned admissibility and probative value of unchallenged In addi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT