Hebb v. State

Decision Date12 August 1970
Docket NumberNo. 421,421
PartiesCharles Louis HEBB and Larry Leonard Holland v. STATE of Maryland.
CourtCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland

Calvin E. Johnson and Harvey A. Blum, Baltimore, with whom was Andrew J. Graham, Baltimore, on brief for appellants.

G. Darrell Russell, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., with whom were Francis B. Burch, Atty. Gen., and Howard L. Cardin, Asst. State's Atty., on brief for appellee.

Argued before MURPHY, C. J., and ANDERSON, MORTON, ORTH and THOMPSON, JJ.

ANDERSON, Judge.

Appellants, Larry Leonard Holland and Charles Louis Hebb, were tried on July 15, 1969 in the Criminal Court of Baltimore in a non-jury trial by Chief Judge Dulany Foster upon an indictment charging storehousebreaking and related offenses. Appellant Holland was found guilty under the third count of the indictment, attempted storehousebreaking, and sentenced to five years under the jurisdiction of the Department of Correctional Services. Appellant Hebb was found guilty under the third count of the indictment, attempted storehousebreaking, and under the fifth count, rogue and vagabond, and was sentenced generally to ten years under the jurisdiction of the Department of Correctional Services. On appeal the appellants raise five questions, namely:

1) Was the evidence at trial as to appellants Holland and Hebb sufficient to convict them of attempted storehousebreaking?

(2) Was the evidence at trial as to appellant Hebb sufficient to convict him of being a rogue and vagabond; and if so, did his conviction merge into the offense of attempted storehousebreaking?

3) Did the court err in admitting into evidence State's exhibit #3, an axe found upon the premises of the storehouse?

4) Was appellant Hebb denied a fair trial by the conduct of the trial judge?

On April 4, 1969 Officer Charles Mitchell of the Baltimore City Police Department received a call at approximately 6:30 p.m. that a burglary was in progress at the Wonderland Bar located at 2045 Pennsylvania Avenue. Upon arrival at 2045 Pennsylvania Avenue at approximately 6:33 p.m., Officer Mitchell and Officer Charles Couch went into the alley behind the premises. As they entered the alley, Officer Mitchell saw a Negro male, subsequently identified as appellant Charles Hebb, on the ground in the enclosed yard behind the Wonderland Bar. Testimony revealed that the yard was enclosed with a six foot chain link fence. The only gate was chained and locked. As the police officers approached, Hebb attempted to jump over the fence and in doing so tore down the gate. He was then apprehended by Officer Couch. At the same time Officer Mitchell observed Larry Holland standing in the alley outside of the yard behind the Wonderland Bar. As Officer Mitchell proceeded down the alley, appellant Holland fled and was apprehended. Subsequent to the arrests, Officer Mitchell climbed the fire escape on the rear of the Wonderland Bar onto the roof. There he observed that a hole had been 'chopped' in the top of the roof and he also found a long handle axe approximately two feet from the hole in the roof.

Mr. Morris Weiss testified that he was the owner and proprietor of the Wonderland Bar. He stated that he had closed and locked the establishment at 5:00 p.m. and as he lfet the bar he encountered the appellants Holland and Hebb who stated, 'We are going to get you tonight.'

I

Storehousebreaking with the intent to steal $100. or more is proscribed by Maryland Code, Article 27, § 32, which states: 'Every person, his aiders, abettors and counsellors, who shall be convicted of the crime of breaking a storehouse * * * with the intent to steal, take or carry away the personal goods of another of the value of one hundred dollars ($100.00) or more therefrom, shall be guilty of a felony, and upon conviction sentenced to the penitentiary for not more than ten years.' Appellants were convicted of an attempt to commit this felony. The test of the sufficiency of the evidence in a non-jury case is whether the evidence, if believed, either shows directly or supports a rational inference of the facts to be proved, from which the court could fairly be convinced, beyond a reasonable doubt, of the defendant's guilt of the offense charged. Gray v. State, 4 Md.App. 175, 241 A.2d 909. While it is true that the mere presence of a person at the scene of a crime is not of itself sufficient to establish that the person committed the crime, it is an important element in determining the guilt of an accused individual. Ball v. State, 7 Md.App. 219, 254 A.2d 367.

The evidence showed that a hole had been 'chopped' in the roof of the storehouse; that some three minutes elapsed between the time of notification to the police and their arrival at the scene; that when the police arrived the appellants fled from the scene; and that one of the appellants was inside the enclosed yard of the Wonderland Bar. The lower court could infer from these facts that the appellants had attempted to break the roof of the Wonderland Bar but had been interrupted by the police and were apprehended as they sought to flee from the scene of their crime.

Appellant Hebb's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is aimed primarily at the proof that the storehouse contained in excess of $100. Hebb maintains that in order to have convicted him, the trial court needed to have before it positive evidence that the storehouse contained goods in excess of $100. We do not agree. The language of the statute is 'intent to steal goods of the value of one hundred dollars ($100.00) or more.' Perhaps the most conclusive method of proving the element of intent is to establish the value of the goods actually stolen. Another method is to establish, by appropriate testimony, the value of the contents of the building where the breaking...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Hughes v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • 16 Febrero 1972
    ...evidence need not be positively connected with the accused or the crime committed in order to render it admissible. Hebb v. State, 10 Md.App. 145, 268 A.2d 578.We note that from our examination of the challenged evidence it would seem to have readily apparent characteristics with respect to......
  • Sample v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • 3 Noviembre 1976
    ...supra, 237 Md. at 624, 206 A.2d 249; Ridley v. State, supra, 228 Md. at 282, 179 A.2d 710, and cases cited therein; Hebb v. State, 10 Md.App. 145, 268 A.2d 578 (1970); Johnson v. State, supra, 5 Md.App. at 545, 248 A.2d 663; Robinson v. State, supra, 4 Md.App. at 530, 243 A.2d 879; Moore v.......
  • Hall v. State, 339
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • 14 Febrero 1974
    ...256 A.2d 826; or even, under appropriate circumstances, with attempted burglary, housebreaking or storehouse breaking. Hebb v. State, 10 Md.App. 145, 150, 268 A.2d 578. Cf. Farley v. State, at 3 Md.App. 584, 588, 240 A.2d 296. Subvarieties (1)(a) and (1)(b) will not, of course, merge into s......
  • Downes v. State, 424
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • 16 Marzo 1971
    ...we felt that Crossland did not apply because not even the breaking and entering of the storehouse was consummated. See Hebb v. State, 10 Md.App. 145, 150, 268 A.2d 578; Johnson v. State, 10 Md.App. 652, 665-666, 272 A.2d 422. Compare Wilson v. State, 7 Md.App. 41, 253 A.2d 439 in which we f......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT