Byrd v. State, 327
| Decision Date | 18 June 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 327,327 |
| Citation | 182 A.2d 47,229 Md. 148 |
| Parties | John Frank BYRD, Jr. v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Frank Cannizzaro, Jr., Baltimore, for appellant.
Thomas W. Jamison, III, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Thomas B. Finan, Atty. Gen., Saul A. Harris, State's Atty. and George J. Helinski, Asst. State's Atty., on the brief), Baltimore, for appellee.
Before BRUNE, C. J., and HAMMOND, PRESCOTT, HORNEY and SYBERT, JJ.
John F. Byrd, Jr., who was convicted of larceny by the Criminal Court of Baltimore sitting without a jury, appeals. He contends, essentially, that the State failed to prove the corporate existence of the alleged owner of the stolen vehicle, that it failed to prove the ownership of the vehicle, and that it produced insufficient evidence to convict him of larceny.
The indictment under which Byrd was convicted charged him with larceny of a 1961 Chevrolet Impala from 'City Chevrolet Co., Inc., a corporation.' At trial, the State's first question of its first witness--a salesman for City Chevrolet--was, 'Directing your attention to October 20, 1961 [the date of the larceny], you were employed by the City Chevrolet Corporation at that time, is that correct?' (Emphasis added.) The witness replied, 'Yes.' The salesman's subsequent testimony established that the stolen vehicle belonged to City Chevrolet and that he had been using it as a demonstrator at the time of its theft. The sales manager for City Chevrolet also testified that the car 'belonged to City Chevrolet.' Although no testimony concerning the Chevrolet agency--after the initial question to the salesman--identified it as a corporation, each witness thereafter called it 'City Chevrolet.'
As we said in Richardson v. State, 221 Md. 85, 89, 156 A.2d 436, 'formal proof' of a corporation's existence is not necessary in a criminal proceeding; it may be proved 'orally and by general reputation.' We think the evidence produced by the State in this case sufficient in this regard, and the Richardson case almost parallel on its facts. The appellant relies heavily upon Sippio v. State, 227 Md. 449, 177 A.2d 261, a reversal, where not only was there a complete absence of any proof of corporate existence but also a failure on the part of the State to prove the ownership of stolen money. Here, there was clear proof of ownership, as amply shown by the testimony of the salesman and the sales manager of City Chevrolet. Cf. Wersten v. State, 228 Md. 226, 179 A.2d 364.
Fi...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Molter v. State
...(1959); Glaros v. State, 223 Md. 272, 280, 164 A.2d 461 (1960); Lewis v. State, 225 Md. 474, 475–76, 171 A.2d 244 (1961); Byrd v. State, 229 Md. 148, 182 A.2d 47 (1962); Stapf v. State, 230 Md. 106, 108, 185 A.2d 496 (1962); Cason v. State, 230 Md. 356, 358, 187 A.2d 103 (1963); Brooks v. S......
-
Hamilton v. State
...the allegata and the probata is not apposite to the situation at bar. In Richardson v. State, 221 Md. 85, 156 A.2d 436; Byrd v. State, 229 Md. 148, 182 A.2d 47, and Stackhouse v. State, 1 Md.App. 399, 230 A.2d 358, the fact of incorporation had been alleged in the indictments and the eviden......
-
Wells v. State
...not include the 'Inc.' used in the indictment) was not, we think, sufficient.' 227 Md. 449 at 452, 177 A.2d 261 at 262. In Byrd v. State, 229 Md. 148, 182 A.2d 47, the indictment alleged a larceny from City Chevrolet Co., Inc., a corporation. The first witness for the State responded affirm......
-
Matthews v. State
...only from the fact of the unexplained possession of recently stolen goods--Stapf v. State 230 Md. 106, 108, 185 A.2d 496; Byrd v. State, 229 Md. 148, 150, 182 A.2d 48; Dyson v. State, 226 Md. 18, 21, 171 A.2d 505; Lewis v. State, 225 Md. 474, 475, 171 A.2d 244; Booker v. State, 225 Md. 183,......