Horsey v. State, 234
| Decision Date | 06 April 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 234,234 |
| Citation | 169 A.2d 457,225 Md. 80 |
| Parties | Calvin HORSEY v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Leonard A. Orman, Baltimore, for appellant.
James O'C. Gentry, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Thomas B. Finan, Atty. Gen., Saul A. Harris, States Atty., and Russell J. White, Asst. State's Atty., Baltimore, on the brief), for appellee.
Before BRUNE, C. J., and HENDERSON, HAMMOND, PRESCOTT and HORNEY, JJ.
The appellant was convicted of larceny by the court sitting without a jury and sentenced to four years. He contends that the court committed reversible error in permitting an infant to testify against him, that the evidence to convict was insufficient, and that the value of the merchandise taken was not sufficiently shown to be in excess of $100.
The State produced an eleven year old boy, Douglas Marion, who testified he saw the appellant carrying boxes out of the store in question on the date mentioned in the indictment, May 23, 1960. The appellant contends that the witness was insufficiently qualified in that it was not shown that he understood the obligation of an oath or that one who lies is likely to be punished. Qualification or competency is largely within the discretion of the trial court. Saldiveri v. State, 217 Md. 412, 419, 143 A.2d 70; Robert v. State, 220 Md. 159, 165, 151 A.2d 737. The trial court found that the boy, who was in the fifth grade, was 'well qualified' and cited evidence in the case which corroborated his testimony. It appears that the boy was examined at some length. He testified he believed in God, although he did not know 'what God would think if he told a lie', that he knew what was meant by 'telling the truth', and when asked, 'If you take an oath to tell the truth, must you tell the truth or can you tell a lie?', he replied, 'You must tell the truth.' We find no abuse of discretion. The case of State v. Ranger, 149 Me. 52, 98 A.2d 652, relied on by the appellant, is distinguishable on the facts.
The State produced the store manager who testified, on the basis of inventories taken on March 4 and May 24, 1960, that $2,900 worth of shirts and other articles of clothing were missing on the latter date. Three boxes of the merchandise were recovered from a witness, Brown, who testified that on March 14, 1960, he received them from the appellant as part payment on a car he had sold to the appellant. He also testified he saw twelve to fourteen boxes of the same type in the appellant's car at that time, although these were never recovered. The appellant had been an employee of the store in question and thus had access to the stockroom. He was seen at the store on May 23, 1960, by a store employee, and by young Marion, who helped him load eight or more boxes in his car and took his license number. Another boy hid one of these boxes and turned it over to the store. It contained missing merchandise. Recent possession of stolen goods is evidence of guilt, unless explained. Daniels v. State, 213 Md. 90, 131 A.2d 267. The police, by means of the license number, went to the appellant's home and found an empty box in his car. The appellant was found hiding under the cellar steps. We think the evidence was sufficient to support the finding of the trial court that the appellant was guilty of larceny.
On the question of value, although...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Evans v. State
...See Terry v. O'Neal, 194 Md. 680, 688, 72 A.2d 26 (1950); McCormick on Evidence § 62, at 156 (3d ed. 1984). See also Horsey v. State, 225 Md. 80, 82, 169 A.2d 457 (1961) ("[q]ualification or competency is largely within the discretion of the trial Page 508 When a substantial question is pre......
-
Hagans v. State
...the count for grand larceny based on ... Art. 27, § 340"); Cofflin v. State, 230 Md. 139, 144, 186 A.2d 216 (1962); Horsey v. State, 225 Md. 80, 83, 169 A.2d 457 (1961); Holtman v. State, 219 Md. 512, 515, 150 A.2d 223 (1959). Because the prosecution was required to prove, as an element of ......
-
Webb v. State
...it was not necessary to charge separate counts "covering each of the items in a series of continuing offenses"); Horsey v. State, 225 Md. 80, 83, 169 A.2d 457 (1961) (where defendant stole various items of clothing and accessories on different dates from store where he was employed, the tri......
-
Rudder v. State
...because the act is one continuous act—the same transaction." State v. Warren, 77 Md. 121, 122, 26 A. 500 (1893). In Horsey v. State, 225 Md. 80, 83, 169 A.2d 457 (1961), the Court of Appeals held that where "separate takings [are] pursuant to a common scheme or intent ... [even] the fact th......