Brown v. State

• Decision Date: 14 June 1956
• Docket Number: No. 191,191
• Citation: Brown v. State, 123 A.2d 324, 210 Md. 301 (Md. 1956)
• Parties: Raymond Guynne BROWN, Jr. v. STATE of Maryland.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

Page 301

210 Md. 301

123 A.2d 324

Raymond Guynne BROWN, Jr. v. STATE of Maryland.

No. 191.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

June 14, 1956.

Robert E. Clapp, Jr., Frederick (L. Awalt Weller, Westminster, on the brief), for appellant.

Stedman Prescott, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen. (C. Ferdinand Sybert, Atty. Gen., and Donald C. Sponseller, State's Atty., Carroll County, Westminster, on the brief), for appellee.

Before BRUNE, C. J., and DELAPLAINE, COLLINS, HENDERSON and HAMMOND, JJ.

HENDERSON, Judge.

The appellant was tried in Carroll County before the court without a jury on two indictments charging him in three counts with keeping and maintaining, managing, and having an interest in, a gaming table, to wit, a pinball machine and the profits thereof on October 12, 1955, and October 15, 1955. He was acquitted on the first indictment but convicted on all three counts of the second and sentenced to a fine of $500 and imprisonment in the House of Correction for six months. He contends that the verdict was clearly erroneous.

The chief witness for the State was Mrs. Fowble, known as 'Hillbilly', who had been employed as a waitress at the City Restaurant in Westminster. She was first employed there in January, 1955, and worked for about six months, when she quit. In August, 1955, she was sent for by the appellant who asked her to come back. She was re-employed by a Mr. Phoebus a few days later and worked there until October 18, when she was discharged. She went immediately to the State's Attorney for Carroll County and informed him about gambling operations on a pinball machine in the restaurant. She took with her certain slips of paper which she claimed to have found on the floor of the restaurant on October 17, 1955, when she came to work. These slips were cash register receipts, stapled together. Her nickname appeared on some of them, and the appellant's name was on others. She identified two of them as pay-offs made by her on October 15 to William D. Stephan, in the amount of $10 each. She also identified one slip as a pay-off made by the appellant personally in the amount of $6. Mr. Stephan testified in corroboration of her testimony that she had paid him the sums mentioned, some time about the middle of October. He also testified he had received a pay-off from the appellant. All of the testimony as to pay-offs was denied by the appellant.

It was shown that the appellant, in October, 1955, was a stockholder in City Restaurant, Inc., and there was some testimony that before incorporation he owned the restaurant individually. He claimed that he received no benefits from the restaurant in October. He admitted, however, that he was the president of Brown Amusements, Inc. which owned and operated pinball machines and other amusement devices, one of which was located on the premises. It was shown that he had obtained a license for one pinball machine in his individual name, to be located on the premises.

Mrs. Fowble described the pinball machine as one requiring the insertion of a nickel in order to play. It was wired with lights, five each way, and if five lights in a row were lighted by a player, the machine would record 200 free games in a space provided for that purpose. The machine itself was not produced in evidence. She testified: 'I played it several times but I never won anything. If they didn't win, it wouldn't pay off. I wasn't lucky enough to win anything.' She testified that the player, if he won free games, was given the option of continuing to play, or to receive cash for the free games recorded. The record of the number of free games could be removed by touching a device under the machine, in the event that the player elected to receive the pay-off. She got the cash from the cash register, and she was instructed to record any pay-offs on a slip similar to those offered in evidence. These slips were kept in the cash register and checked every Tuesday night by the appellant or his brother, Walter Brown. She testified that she was instructed by the appellant, and Mrs. Helen Thompson, the manager of the restaurant, to be careful not to pay off any one she did not know, or when police were in the restaurant. On some occasions she helped the appellant count the money from the machine, some of which was left in the cash register drawer to be used in future pay-offs.

The appellant does not deny that the testimony of Mrs. Fowble, if believed, was sufficient to implicate him, but argues that she was an accomplice, and that the witness Stephan was unable to fix the time of her alleged pay-offs to him, other than the middle of October, and that evidence of prior occasions was disbelieved by the trial court, since the appellant was acquitted on the indictment charging offenses on or before October 12. We think, however, that there was sufficient corroboration. While Stephan could not fix the exact date, he testified he was paid $20 by her on only one occasion, which was about the middle of October, and shortly before he went with her to the State's Attorney's office. It is not necessary that corroboration extend to every detail. Wolf v. State, 143 Md. 489, 504, 122 A. 641; Ferraro v. State, 200 Md. 274, 282, 89 A.2d 628; Polansky v. State, 205 Md. 362, 367, 109 A.2d 52. It is conceded that Stephan was not an accomplice. See Note 119 A.L.R. 707.

The appellant contends that there was no proof that he kept or maintained, managed, or had an interest in the pinball machine. But the testimony was that the appellant was the president of the corporation owning the machine, and had a license to operate it in his own name. Under Code P.L.L., 1930 ed., art. 7, § 90, as enacted by Acts of 1947, Ch. 479, it was made a misdemeanor to maintain or operate in Carroll County without a license 'any pinball machine or similar device operated or played by the insertion of a coin or token issuing checks or tokens which permits free plays or replays, only, or registering scores, free plays, or replays'. The appellant had such a license, and Mrs. Fowble testified he checked the receipts from the machine, instructed her in regard to pay-offs, and checked the pay-off slips on one of which his name appeared. The testimony permits the inference, at least, that he managed or had an interest in the machine or its profits.

The appellant finally contends that there was no legally sufficient evidence that the pinball machine was a gaming device, because there was no evidence that it was a game of chance, as distinguished from a game of skill. Code 1951, art. 27, § 303, provides that 'No person shall keep any gaming table, or any house * * * or place * * * for the purpose of gambling.' Section 304 provides that 'Every faro table * * * or any other kind of gaming table (billiard table excepted), at which any game of chance shall be played for money or any other thing, shall be deemed a gaming table.' Section 311, on which the indictment in the instant case was based, provides: 'Any person who shall keep any gaming table or other place of gambling in this State, * ** or who shall in any way manage such gaming table or other place for gambling in this State, or who shall have any interest in any gaming table...