Cottmeyer v. State
Decision Date | 17 July 2017 |
Docket Number | No. 996,996 |
Parties | MATTHEW EVERETT COTTMEYER v. STATE OF MARYLAND |
Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
UNREPORTED
Kehoe, Leahy, Alpert, Paul E. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.
Opinion by Alpert, J.
Circuit Court for Somerset County
*This is an unreported opinion, and it may not be cited in any paper, brief, motion, or other document filed in this Court or any other Maryland Court as either precedent within the rule of stare decisis or as persuasive authority. Md. Rule 1-104.
Appellant, Matthew Everett Cottmeyer, was charged in the Circuit Court for Somerset County, Maryland, with first degree burglary, conspiracy to commit first degree burglary, theft between $1,000 and $10,000, and related offenses. Appellant was acquitted by a jury of the burglary and conspiracy related charges, but convicted on the theft charge. Appellant was sentenced to ten years, with all but five years suspended, with credit for time served. He was also ordered to pay $1,583.95 restitution, as a condition of probation, to the victim in this case. Appellant timely appealed and presents the following questions for our review:
For the following reasons, we shall affirm.
Sometime in October 2015, Sharon Hoffman returned to her home in Eden, Maryland, from an extended stay in Georgia, and noticed that one of her windows was open and that several items of jewelry were missing from her bedroom. Hoffman described the missing jewelry as follows: (1) her grandmother's cameo ring, worth approximately $100 to $150 dollars; (2) her wedding band (3) engagement ring and, (4) her ex-husband's wedding ring, with all three of these appraised as a set at over $2,000.00; (5) a 1972 JamesM. Bennett High School class ring, with her initials inside, originally purchased between $100 and $150 dollars; (6) a gold chain; and, (7) a tennis bracelet with small diamonds.
Hoffman testified that a family named the Bonnevilles lived next door, and that the daughter's name was Jacqueline Bonneville Hughes. Hoffman also testified that, while she was away in Georgia, her ex-husband, Harry Hoffman stayed at the house. Mr. Hoffman denied that he took any of his ex-wife's jewelry.
On October 20, 2015, Maryland State Trooper James Cannon took a report from the Hoffmans about the theft. Sharon Hoffman informed him that the seven items of jewelry were valued at $1,583.95. This information was then turned over to the Criminal Investigations section for the Maryland State Police.
Gerry Cullen, an employee of Crazy Louie's Pawn Shop in Salisbury, Maryland, confirmed that he was the custodian of records for the store and the records were kept in the ordinary course of business. Those records established that appellant sold five (5) rings on September 6, 2015 at approximately 4:35 p.m. These included: (1) a ten karat yellow gold men's ring with a broken shank; (2) a ten-karat yellow gold 1972 James M. Bennett High School class ring; (3) a fourteen-karat yellow gold cameo ring with antique setting; (4) a fourteen-karat women's yellow gold ring; and, (5) a fourteen-karat women's yellow gold wrap with two diamonds. Appellant was paid $150.00 for the five rings. This record was filed with law enforcement as required by pertinent licensing authority for the State of Maryland.
Maryland State Police Corporal Jonathan Pruitt, a criminal investigator, became involved in the burglary and theft from Sharon Hoffman's home on or around October 20,2015. On November 12, 2015, he learned that appellant sold five rings, matching the description of the ones stolen, to Crazy Louie's. The rings, including the class ring with Hoffman's initials inside, were never recovered because they were either sold or melted down.
Corporal Pruitt eventually spoke to appellant on the phone on November 20, 2015, and appellant came to the Maryland State Police barrack in Princess Anne for an interview three days later on November 23, 2015. Appellant waived his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), and a recording of his interview was played for the jury, without objection. In that interview, a transcript of which was admitted into evidence, appellant stated the following:
Jackie is the one that called me 'cause Kyle never really talks to me. Jackie called me saying she had four or five rings that she needed me to pawn because Kyle didn't have his license anymore for some reason or another. Something was going on with Kyle or something or whatever story they gave me. So, I was like all right. I just figured I was doing a favor for a friend. So, I went down there, five rings, like she said, pawned them, and that was it.1
Appellant told Corporal Pruitt that "Jackie" was the victim's neighbor, and that they broke into the neighbor's house by climbing through a window. Appellant took Jackie and Kyle to the pawnshop, and that, after he sold the rings, including the victim's high school class ring, he gave the money to Kyle, who then gave the money to Jackie. Appellant did not receive any money in return.
Appellant maintained that he was just "doing a favor for a friend." Appellant informed Corporal Pruitt as follows:
After - after I came out the pawnshop and we were headed back home - I was going to drop them off, I kinda was pressing them a little bit. And I was saying things kinda didn't make sense or whatever. Why, you know, (inaudible) five rings right now and Bennett - one of them was a Bennett ring. And I was like, "Y'all didn't go to Bennett." So, I was like, "What's the deal?" And he ended up - she ended up saying they went to the neighbor's house. They were gone for a while or whatever. And -
Appellant continued, as follows:
Corporal Pruitt confirmed that "Jackie" was Hoffman's neighbor, Jacqueline Hughes. He also went to the Hoffman residence and saw a "smudge of a palm print on the window," but it was not suitable for evidence collection due to age and weathering.
Appellant testified on his own behalf. Appellant confirmed that "Jackie" had five gold rings that she wanted him to sell. She claimed that she obtained the rings from her grandmother. After he drove Jackie and Kyle to the pawnshop and sold the rings for herwhile she remained outside in the car, he gave her the money, less $20 gas money for himself. It was after the transaction was complete, according to appellant, that Jackie informed him that she and Kyle stole the rings from the neighbor's house.
Appellant also explained that he did not look at the rings until he was inside the pawn shop. On cross-examination, appellant agreed that he saw the high school class ring as it was laid out on the counter, and agreed that he became suspicious at that point in time. Based on his suspicions, appellant testified that he then questioned Jackie and Kyle about where the rings came from.
Appellant further testified that he had never been on the victim's, Hoffman's, property or in that house. He confirmed that, sometime in 2015, he was convicted for theft for stealing speakers from a Target. And, appellant concluded by testifying that, had he known the rings were stolen, he would not have sold them.
We shall include additional detail in the following discussion.
Appellant first contends that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction under either the theory that he obtained or exerted unauthorized control over, or that he was in possession of, Hoffman's jewelry. The State responds that appellant did not challenge the evidence on the grounds that he did not obtain or exert unauthorized control and that that claim is unpreserved. The State also argues on the merits that the evidence was sufficient to sustain appellant's conviction under either theory.
At the end of the State's case-in-chief, appellant's counsel made a motion for judgment of acquittal, and argued as follows with respect to the theft count:
As to count seven theft between one thousand and ten thousand, again, the evidence that's been submitted by the State at this point or produced by the State at this point is that for my Client there is evidence that he pawned these items. His statement will indicate that he did not know at the time he pawned them that they were stolen. That he received information later from Jackie that her and Kyle had been in fact the ones that stole the items.
The court denied the motion. After appellant testified in his own defense, counsel renewed the motion, arguing as follows as to the theft count:
To continue reading
Request your trial