Gazaille v. State
| Decision Date | 21 November 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 339,339 |
| Citation | 235 A.2d 306,2 Md.App. 462 |
| Parties | Maurice Ernest GAZAILLE v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Roger W. Titus, Rockville, for appellant.
Frank A. DeCosta, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Baltimore, and Francis B. Burch, Atty. Gen., Baltimore, William A. Linthicum, Jr., and James F. Tomes, State's Atty. and Asst. State's Atty. for Montgomery County, Rockville, on the brief, for appellee.
Before MURPHY, C. J., and ANDERSON, MORTON, ORTH and THOMPSON, JJ.
Maurice Ernest Gazaille, the appellant, was convicted by a jury of daytime housebreaking and grand larceny in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County before Judge James H. Pugh. Such facts as are necessary for the opinion are stated hereinafter.
Gazaille complains that certain articles, constituting 'fruits' of an illegal arrest, were introduced into evidence. Since there was no objection to the introduction of the articles at the trial, the question is not properly before this court, Maryland Rule 1085; Porter v. State, 230 Md. 535, 187 A.2d 870. In Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 659, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 1693, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961) at footnote 9, the Supreme Court stated that:
'As is always the case, however, state procedural requirements governing assertion and pursuance of direct and collateral constitutional challenges to criminal prosecutions must be respected.'
Gazaille complains that Maryland law does not define the crimes of grand larceny and daytime housebreaking but merely provides a punishment for the crimes; that since the crimes did not exist at common law and are not defined under present statutes, daytime housebreaking and grand larceny do not exist under Maryland law.
Maryland Code Art. 27 § 340 does not define grand larceny but merely provides a punishment. However, grand larceny was a common law crime, Clark and Marshall, Law of Crimes § 12.07 (6th Ed. 1958), and is a part of existing law in Maryland under Article 5 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights which adopted the common law that existed on July 4, 1776.
Maryland Code Art. 27 § 30(b) extends the definition of burglary to include 'Any person * * * who shall be convicted of the crime of breaking a dwelling house in the daytime * * *.' We think that is a sufficient description of the crime. See Swift v. State, 224 Md. 300, 167 A.2d 792. Nevertheless, housebreaking was also a crime at common law, Putnam v. State, 234 Md. 537, 542-544, 200 A.2d 59, 62-63.
Gazaille complains that there was not enough evidence to establish the crime took place in the daytime, and that the value of the stolen goods was one hundred dollars ($100.00) or more.
Since the time of the housebreaking could not be ascertained, the appellant was charged with and convicted of the lesser included offense-daytime housebreaking as opposed to common law burglary. St. Clair v. State, 1 Md.App. 605, 232 A.2d 565. 1
There was direct testimony by the owner of the stolen goods that the value was over one hundred dollars ($100.00). This is sufficient evidence of the value of the goods, Scott v. State, 1 Md.App. 481, 494, 231 A.2d 728. The jury as the trier of the facts weighs the credibility of the witnesses, Hill v. State, 237 Md. 630, 206...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lakeysha P., In re
...penalty." 1 Md.App. at 622, 232 A.2d at 575. "Daytime" was correctly construed to mean "anytime." Id. See also Gazaille v. State, 2 Md.App. 462, 464, 235 A.2d 306, 307 (1967) ("Since the time of the housebreaking could not be ascertained, the appellant was charged with and convicted of the ......
-
Barber v. State, 230
...shown he did not know the market value. Mason v. State, 9 Md.App. 61, 262 A.2d 576 (1970), cert. denied, 258 Md. 729; Gazaille v. State, 2 Md.App. 462, 235 A.2d 306 (1967). Compare Jones v. State, 6 Md.App. 344, 251 A.2d 46 II Seizures Detective David Van Dyke of the Prince George's County ......
-
Spratt v. State
...the determination of value by the trial judge "was one of fact and one the testimony undoubtedly allowed."); Gazaille v. State, 2 Md.App. 462, 464-65, 235 A.2d 306, 307 (1967). In a recent interpretation, the Court of Special Appeals reviewed the 1985 amendments to the malicious destruction......
-
Covington v. State
...(.)' Palmer v. State, 19 Md.App. 678, 313 A.2d 698 (1974); Ragler v. State, 18 Md.App. 671, 308 A.2d 401 (1973); Gazaille v. State, 2 Md.App. 462, 235 A.2d 306 (1967), even Constitutional questions, Squire v. State, 32 Md.App. 307, 360 A.2d 443 (1976), cert. granted Oct. 27, 1976; Hall v. S......