Cooper v. State

• Decision Date: 04 April 1963
• Docket Number: Nos. 240,241,s. 240
• Citation: 231 Md. 248,189 A.2d 620
• Parties: Charles Henry COOPER v. STATE of Maryland. Lawrence WILLIAMS and Lawrence Buddy Carter v. STATE of Maryland.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

Page 248

231 Md. 248

189 A.2d 620

Charles Henry COOPER v. STATE of Maryland.

Lawrence WILLIAMS and Lawrence Buddy Carter v. STATE of Maryland.

Nos. 240, 241.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

April 4, 1963.

Neil M. Shpritz, Baltimore, for Lawrence Williams, appellant.

Nathan Stern and Morris Lee Kaplan, Baltimore, for Lawrence Buddy Carter, appellant.

W. Emerson Brown, Jr., and Brown & Allen, Baltimore, for appellant.

Thomas B. Finan, Atty. Gen., William J. O'Donnell and James W. McAllister, State's Atty., and Asst. State's Atty., for Baltimore City, Baltimore, and Richard M. Pollitt, Special Atty., Salisbury, for appellee.

Before BRUNE, C. J., and HENDERSON, PRESCOTT, HORNEY and SYBERT, JJ.

HORNEY, Judge.

The defendants (Charles Henry Cooper, Lawrence Williams and Lawrence Buddy Carter) were convicted of statutory burglary by the trial court sitting without a jury under several indictments and have appealed.

In the first indictment (2091/62), Cooper and Williams were jointly charged with breaking and entering 1411 Division Street and stealing from an apartment therein two radios and other articles. Both plead not guilty, but the indictment was subsequently stetted as to Williams. Cooper was convicted of statutory burglary and was sentenced to a term of three years in the Institution for Men.

In the second indictment (2092/62), Williams and Carter were jointly charged with breaking and entering 710 Newington Avenue and stealing a television and other articles. Williams plead guilty to the first count of the indictment and Carter plead not guilty but was convicted of statutory burglary. Both defendants were sentenced to a term of three years in the Institution for Men.

In the third indictment (2093/62), Williams and Carter were also jointly charged with breaking and entering 2003 Madison Avenue and stealing from an apartment therein (but not that of Williams who also had an apartment in the same building) a hi-fi radio-phonograph and other articles. Williams plead guilty to the first count of the indictment and Carter plead not guilty but was convicted of statutory burglary. Both defendants were sentenced to another term of three years to run concurrently with the sentences imposed under 2092/62.

There were other indictments which are not involved in these appeals. In 2094/62 and 2095/62, a Joseph Berman was charged with and plead guilty to receiving the stolen television and hi-fi sets but did not appeal.

Lt. James H. Butler, a police officer, testified that he had investigated the three burglaries. Cooper was arrested first and admitted that he had participated in the Division Street burglary. On information obtained while he was questioning Cooper, the officer also took Williams and Carter into custody.

After the arrest of all the defendants, Cooper made a statement to the police in the presence of Williams and Carter in which he said that the three of them went to 710 Newington together; that he had remained outside while Williams and Carter went inside and got the television; and that they took the television in a taxi-cab to Williams' apartment at 2003 Madison. Williams did not deny the truth of the accusation and Carter admitted that he had been with Cooper and Williams at 710 Newington at the time of the burglary.

Williams also made a statement to the police in the presence of Carter in which he said that, after he had informed Carter that Cooper was always leaving stolen property at his place, he asked Carter to help him move a television and hi-fi set from his apartment to Cooper's home. But Carter neither denied nor admitted what had been said.

When the police officer was asked at the trial what other evidence there was against Carter with respect to the Madison Avenue burglary, he replied that although Williams had said that Carter had helped him move the television and hi-fi sets, he did not know whether or not Carter had done so. The officer also stated that Cooper (who was not charged with the Madison Avenue burglary) had accused Williams and Carter of the theft of the hi-fi set and that Carter had just shrugged his shoulders.

Berman, who had bought the stolen television and hi-fi sets, testified that he did not remember their names but thought the defendants (Cooper, Williams and Carter) may have been present when the articles were sold. And, according to the police officer, Carter was said by Cooper and Williams to have taken the $80 paid them by Berman, of which Cooper was said to have received only $10 and Williams only $3. These statements, though made in the presence of Carter, were likewise neither denied nor admitted by him.

Carter testified at the trial that he helped move the television and hi-fi sets from 2003 Madison but denied knowing they had been stolen.

The Cooper Case

In this case, the only question is whether the evidence was so confusing and conflicting as to be insufficient in law to sustain the conviction.

While the evidence was presented in a manner that makes it difficult to follow easily, the record nevertheless reveals that the evidence produced on behalf of the State was not confusing. Besides proof that an apartment at 1411 Division Street (not 1411 Madison Avenue as stated in the appellant's brief) had been unlawfully entered and two radios stolen therefrom and proof that the radios had been recovered from relatives of Cooper, there was evidence that the defendant had admitted to the police officer that he had burglarized the apartment. This was enough to sustain the conviction.

The trial court, in finding the defendant guilty on the evidence produced, stated that he accepted the testimony of the police officer as true and rejected the testimony of the appellant. This the trial court, as the trier of facts, had a right to do....