Christopher v. State

• Decision Date: 06 April 1970
• Docket Number: No. 264,264
• Citation: 263 A.2d 605,9 Md.App. 277
• Parties: James Roy CHRISTOPHER and James Franklin Klimp v. STATE of Maryland.
• Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

Page 277

9 Md.App. 277

263 A.2d 605

James Roy CHRISTOPHER and James Franklin Klimp v. STATE of Maryland.

No. 264.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.

April 6, 1970.

Certiorari Denied June 22, 1970.

Charles P. Brown, and Alfred L. Brennan, Baltimore, for appellants.

T. Joseph Touhey, Asst. Atty. Gen., with whom were Francis B. Burch, Atty. Gen., Samuel A. Green, Jr., State's Atty., and Stuart E. Hirsch, Asst. State's Atty. for Baltimore County, respectively on brief, for appellee.

Before MURPHY, C. J., and ANDERSON, MORTON, ORTH and THOMPSON, JJ.

MURPHY, Chief Judge.

Appellants Christopher and Klimp were found guilty by a jury in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County of (1) breaking the outhouse of Eastwind, Inc. on January 2, 1969, with intent to steal goods of the value of $100.00 or more, (2) breaking the outhouse of Charles Evering Post 6505, Inc. on January 5, 1969, with intent to steal goods of the value of $100,00 or more, and (3) receiving stolen goods of the value of $100.00 or more on January 11, 1969, the property of Brackett, Inc. ¹ On this appeal, each appellant contends, as to the Eastwind breaking, that there was insufficient evidence of his criminal agency to justify the action of the trial judge in overruling their motions for judgment of acquittal. We disagree.

Kenneth Van Hoy testified as a State's witness that he, together with the appellants, committed the offense. Hoy's testimony was corroborated, as to Christopher's participation, by evidence showing that Christopher's fingerprint was lifted from a whiskey bottle found on top of a ransacked safe in the manager's office. The evidence showed that the print was a fresh one, having been impressed upon the bottle within twenty-four hours of its discovery by the police on January 2, 1969. The evidence also tended to show that the bottle was one which the burglars had handled during the commission of the crime. Compare McNeil v. State, 227 Md. 298, 176 A.2d 338. In addition, there was legally sufficient evidence corroborative of Hoy's testimony showing that some whiskey bottles stolen during the crime were found by police on January 15, 1969 in Christopher's apartment. We think Christopher's recent possession of the property stolen from Eastwind, together with Hoy's amply corroborated testimony of Christopher's involvement in that offense constitutes a legally sufficient evidentiary predicate to justify submission of the case to the jury for its determination of his guilt. See Jones v. State, 5 Md.App. 180, 245 A.2d 897.

Hoy's testimony of Klimp's participation in the Eastwind breaking was corroborated by other evidence tending to show that at the time of the crime, Klimp was living with Christopher and his wife and that part of the stolen whiskey was for a time kept in the bedroom in which Klimp slept. While an accused may not be convicted in this State on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice, it is settled that only slight corroboration is necessary and will suffice provided it tends either to identify the accused with the perpetrators of the crime, or to show his participation in the crime itself. Spies v. State, 8 Md.App. 160, 258 A.2d 758; Boone v. State, 3 Md.App. 11, 237 A.2d 787. We think Klimp's association with Christopher was such as would, under the circumstances, permit the inference that they were in joint possession of recently stolen goods, and that this evidence, together with Hoy's corroborated testimony of Klimp's participation in the crime, was legally sufficient to carry the case to the jury on the question of Klimp's guilt of breaking the outhouse of Eastwind. Jones v. State, supra.

We find no merit in appellants' contention, advanced on the authority of Leary v. United States, 395 U.S. 6, 89 S.Ct. 1532, 23 L.Ed.2d 57, that it is unconstitutional to infer from possession of recently stolen goods that the possessor was the thief who broke into the outhouse from which the goods were stolen. See Anglin v. State, 244 Md. 652, 224 A.2d 668, and Boswell v. State, 5 Md.App. 571, 249 A.2d 490.

As to the breaking of the Charles Evering Post 6505, the State's evidence of appellants' criminal agency was essentially limited to Hoy's testimony that shortly after the crime the appellants told him that they had committed it and showed him some whiskey, stored in the closet of Christopher's home, which they said they had stolen from the Post. Unlike the whiskey stolen in the Eastwind crime, which independent evidence established was found in Christopher's apartment, there was no such evidence, other than Hoy's testimony, that the whiskey stolen from the Post was the same whiskey as that stored in Christopher's closet.

As to the charge of receiving stolen goods belonging to Brackett-specifically four guns-the State's evidence of appellants' criminal agency was primarily based on Hoy's testimony that Klimp (but not Christopher) had told him that he and Christopher had broken in and stolen the guns. Hoy testified that he saw the stolen guns in Christopher's...