Gibson v. State

• Citation: 238 Md. 414,209 A.2d 242
• Decision Date: 27 April 1965
• Docket Number: No. 286,286
• Parties: Herman Clayton GIBSON and Helen Gibson v. STATE of Maryland.
• Court: Court of Appeals of Maryland

Page 414

238 Md. 414

209 A.2d 242

Herman Clayton GIBSON and Helen Gibson v. STATE of Maryland.

No. 286.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

April 27, 1965.

C. Rogers Hall, Jr., Westminster, for appellants.

Dickee M. Howard, Sp. Atty., Baltimore (Thomas B. Finan, Atty. Gen., Baltimore, and T. Bryan McIntire, State's Atty., for Carroll County, Westminster, on the brief), for appellee.

Before HAMMOND, MARBURY, SYBERT, OPPENHEIMER and BARNES, JJ.

MARBURY, Judge.

Herman Gibson and his wife, Helen, appellants, were indicted by the Grand Jury for Carroll County for wilfully and maliciously destroying a fence on property owned by Carroll Strauss, under the provisions of Code (1957), Article 27, Section 111. On June 2, 1964, the court, sitting without a jury, found them guilty and sentenced each of them to pay a fine of $100 and costs. They appealed from this judgment and sentence.

The property in question lies north of Birdview Road, which is an east-west thoroughfare in Carroll County. The Strauss property lies contiguous to Birdview Road, and the appellants' farm lies north of the Strauss property. A farm road runs from Birdview Road north across the Strauss property and continues into the Gibson farm. A bill in equity was filed on June 28, 1963, by the appellants to enjoin Mr. and Mrs. Strauss from interfering with their rights to use this roadway. Testimony was heard by the Circuit Court for Carroll County in August 1963 but the court withheld its decision until June 1, 1964, when it granted the injunction against the Strausses from interfering with the Gibsons' use of the road.

Mr. Strauss testified that the fence which was destroyed was located parallel to and about three or four feet from the farm road. He observed the appellants on January 23, 1964, cutting this barbed wire fence along his property. He stated that when he walked out from behind a tree Mr. Gibson had a gun and threatened to 'shoot your legs out from under you' if he interfered. The next day, he hid in his barn and took photographs of the Gibsons again cutting his fence. These photographs were admitted into evidence. He further testified that the fence did not impair the use of the roadway.

The appellants on the other hand, testified that the Strauss fence closed the roadway and interfered with their little girl in reaching a school bus. It was evident that there had been 'bad blood' between the parties concerning the use of this road and there was evidence that the Strausses had in the past erected and placed obstructions in the roadway for the purpose of harassing the appellants.

The Gibsons on this appeal present only one question: was there sufficient evidence under the statute ¹ presented to the court below to warrant a finding of guilty. Their principal argument is that the State did not prove that the actions of the appellants were wilful and malicious. They rely on the case of Rosenberg v. State, 164 Md. 473, 165 A. 306. There Rosenberg and another were convicted of unlawfully, wilfully, and maliciously destroying a post standing on the property of one Morton. It was proved that the destruction of the post consisted of its removal from an area partly included within the lines of Morton's property which Rosenberg had been using as an alleyway. The post was planted to prevent such use. Rosenberg claimed on appeal that the removal of the post was not malicious. Judge Urner defined the term 'wilfully' as characterizing an act done with deliberate intention for which there is no reasonable excuse, and the word 'maliciously' as a...