Bradley v. State, 145
| Decision Date | 15 May 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 145,145 |
| Parties | BRADLEY v. STATE. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Wm. H. Murphy and W. A. C. Hughes, Jr., Baltimore, for appellant.
Kenneth C. Proctor, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Edward D. E. Rollins, Atty. Gen., Anselm Sodaro, State's Atty., and Julius A. Romano, Asst. State's Atty., Baltimore, on the brief), for appellee.
Before SOBELOFF, C. J., and DELAPLAINE, COLLINS, HENDERSON and HAMMOND, JJ.
This is an appeal by Henry Bradley from a judgment and sentence for violation of the lottery laws in a trial before the trial judge without a jury.
The appellant was driving his automobile on Henrietta Street in Baltimore City on August 21, 1952, about 12:45 p. m. Officer Charles Stephan, a foot patrolman who had previously served on the Vice Squad and was familiar with lotteries, was patrolling his beat near the intersection of Henrietta and Howard Streets. He testified as follows: At that time he observed an automobile driven by the appellant making a right hand turn from Sharp Street into Henrietta Street. He stopped the car and told the appellant he was driving on the wrong side of the street. Appellant, having stopped his car, backed up so he was then on the proper side. Officer Ernest Shephard, another foot patrolman, then arrived at the scene. Officer Stephan then told appellant: Appellant seemed very nervous and opened the car door and put his foot on the frame of the car. Officer Stephan then said to him: 'Let me see your cards.' Appellant got out of the car, reached in his right hand pocket and pulled out a white handkerchief, his registration card, and his driver's license. As he handed these cards to Officer Stephan a white paper fell to the ground. Officer Shephard, who was standing back of appellant, picked up the paper and looked at it. Officer Stephan looked at the registration card and driver's license and Officer Shephard handed him the paper which Officer Stephan identified as 'adding machine lottery tapes.' Officer Stephan asked appellant why he dropped the tapes, to which he replied that the tapes were not his and he did not know how they got on the ground. The officers then placed appellant under arrest and drove him to the Southern Police Station. He was there searched by the turnkey and sixteen money wrappers and $3.00 in cash were found on him. Lieutenant Dickerson then said to appellant: Appellant replied: 'I just had them on me at the wrong time.' At the police station he was charged with the lottery violation and with driving on the wrong side of the street. Officer Staphan said appellant was actually charged with the lottery first because he did not have the time then to write out the traffic summons. The appellant was found not guilty of the traffic violation before Magistrate Levinson. Officer Stephan denied that he removed the lottery tapes from appellant's pocket.
Officer Shephard testified that he heard Officer Stephan accuse the appellant of driving on the wrong side of the street and then saw Officer Stephan standing beside the car. When he arrived Officer Stephan was asking the appellant for his registration card and driver's license. Appellant reached into his right hand pocket. As he did so he withdrew a handkerchief and two cards and slips of paper fell to the ground. Officer Shephard stooped down and picked up the papers and handed them to Officer Stephan. Officer Stephan said: 'Shep, they are lottery tapes.' Officer Shephard said he had never had any previous knowledge or experience in lottery cases. Appellant denied that the tapes belonged to him. Officer Shephard confirmed the statement made to Lieutenant Dickerson by the appellant.
Sarah Mercer, for the appellant, testified that she saw Henry Bradley driving the car on this particular occasion and that the entire vehicle was being operated on the right side of the street. She did not see the officer when he first stopped the appellant but saw them talking together. She said she did not know what the officer was saying to Bradley because she was too far away to hear but she noticed the appellant walk to the front of the car and turn around. Another officer (Officer Shephard) then came on the scene and searched Bradley and patted his pockets. She said: 'As I remember he went into Mr. Bradley's right hand pants pocket.' She could not see what he took from the pocket. He did take something 'because he looked at it.' She did not see anything fall from appellant's pocket. During all of this time she was 'a little over half a block away' from the appellant.
Mildred Page, testifying for the appellant, said she saw Bradley after the officer had stopped him and at...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. State
...offenses. Bryant v. State, 229 Md. 537, 185 A.2d 190.11 See for example: Blager v. State, 162 Md. 664, 161 A. 1; Bradley v. State, 202 Md. 393, 394, 96 A.2d 491; Franklin v. State, 208 Md. 628, 119 A.2d 439; Spriggs v. State, 226 Md. 50, 171 A.2d 715.12 See for example: Bratburd v. State, 1......
-
Burkett v. State
...the statutes have done so on the basis that the officer observed a violation of law prior to the initial stopping. In Bradley v. State, 202 Md. 393, 96 A.2d 491 in discussing this problem the Court pointed out at page 493 of 96 'By Chapter 1007, of the Laws of Maryland of 1943, Article 66 1......
-
Perguson v. United States
...certiorari denied, 305 U.S. 624, 59 S.Ct. 85, 83 L.Ed. 399. 2. See, Romero v. People of Puerto Rico, 1 Cir., 182 F.2d 864; Bradley v. State, 202 Md. 393, 96 A.2d 491; Yanch v. State, 201 Md. 296, 93 A.2d 749; Ford v. State, 85 Md. 465, 37 A. 172, 41 L.R.A. 551; City' of St. Paul, v. Stovall......
-
Shipley v. State
...times and is subject to examination upon demand by a uniformed officer of the law), and cases upholding the statute such as Bradley v. State, 202 Md. 393, 96 A.2d 491; Sharpe v. State, 231 Md. 401, 190 A.2d 628, cert. denied, 375 U.S. 946, (and Sharpe v. Warden, Baltimore City Jail, D.C., 2......