Chavis v. State
| Decision Date | 16 February 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 251,251 |
| Citation | 3 Md.App. 179,238 A.2d 151 |
| Parties | William Daniel CHAVIS, Jr. v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Stanley S. Cohen, Baltimore, for appellant.
James R. Klein, Asst. Atty. Gen., Baltimore, with whom were Francis B. Burch, Atty. Gen., Charles E. Moylan, Jr., and William R. Lenhard, State's Atty., and Asst. State's Atty., for Baltimore City, respectively, Baltimore, on brief, for appellee.
Before ANDERSON, MORTON, ORTH and THOMPSON, JJ., and DIGGES, J. DUDLEY, Special Judge.
The Appellant, William Daniel Chavis, Jr., was convicted by Judge J. Gilbert Prendergast, sitting in the Criminal Court of Baltimore, without a jury, of storehouse breaking, possession of a starter pistol, 1 and carrying a deadly weapon. 2 He was sentenced to three years for the storehouse breaking, one year for possession of a starter pistol to be served consecutively, and he was given a suspended one year sentence for carrying a deadly weapon.
In this appeal, he contends that there was no legally sufficient evidence to sustain his conviction of storehouse breaking.
The record indicates that the owner of a tavern in Baltimore City closed the establishment at 1:00 A.M. on July 24, 1966, which contained merchandise valued at approximately $5000; and when he returned at 4:00 A.M. as a result of having been called by the police, he found the rear door of the tavern had been forced open and an inner door leading into the bar had been damaged.
A police officer testified that he went to the rear of the tavern a few minutes before 4:00 A.M., in response to a call to investigate a breaking and entering of the tavern, and there he encountered the Appellant approximately six feet from the rear door. He also observed several heavy metalic objects, variously described as crow bars or pinch bars, both inside and outside of the door. He was joined by a fellow officer almost immediately who entered the rear door and found the co-defendant of the Appellant 'going up the stairs.' Another officer searched the Appellant and found a blackjack and a starter pistol.
The Appellant took the stand and testified that he had taken a cab from a party he had attended earlier in the evening; that he got out of the cab about seven blocks from his home to enable the cab driver to answer another call; that he walked to the rear of the tavern to relieve himself; and that he was about to depart for his home when apprehended by the officer. He denied knowing the codefendant and the co-defendant denied knowing the Appellant. The co-defendant testified that the Appellant did not participate in the crime. He acknowledged seeing the Appellant at the rear of the premises and admitted calling him 'Danny' at the police station but asserted he learned the Appellant's name from the police. The Appellant admitted that he had been previously convicted of burglary, malicious destruction of property, unauthorized use of motor vehicles and assault and battery on four occasions.
It is argued on behalf of the Appellant that his presence at the scene of the crime is the only evidence to connect him with its commission and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hopewell v. State
...No. 504, 24 Md.App. 715, 724, 332 A.2d 698 (1975); McDuffie v. State, 10 Md.App. 190, 193, 268 A.2d 590 (1970); Chavis v. State, 3 Md.App. 179, 181-82, 238 A.2d 151 (1968). Throughout the thirty-some cases that have mentioned the mere presence doctrine since the Court of Appeals decision in......
-
Knight v. State
...circumstances surrounding the presence of the accused at the scene in making the determination of guilt or innocence." Chavis v. State, 3 Md. App. 179, 182 (1968). Indeed, it is also well settled that "there is no difference between direct and circumstantial evidence" any attempt to disting......
-
State v. Foster
...the witness is an accomplice. See Tasco v. State, 223 Md. 503, 165 A.2d 456; Coleman v. State, 4 Md.App. 386, 243 A.2d 24; Chavis v. State, 3 Md.App. 179, 238 A.2d 151. That a witness, alleged to be an accomplice, testifies to facts exculpating himself from any connection with or involvemen......
-
Williams v. State
...the witness is an accomplice. See Tasco v. State, 223 Md. 503, 165 A.2d 456; Coleman v. State, 4 Md.App. 386, 243 A.2d 24; Chavis v. State, 3 Md.App. 179, 238 A.2d 151. That a witness, alleged to be an accomplice, testifies to facts exculpating himself from any connection with or involvemen......