Howard v. State
| Decision Date | 05 June 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 4,4 |
| Citation | 230 A.2d 115,1 Md.App. 379 |
| Parties | James Earl HOWARD v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Alan J. Karlin, Baltimore, for appellant.
Donald Needle, Asst. Atty. Gen., Thomas B. Finan, former Atty. Gen., Charles E. Moyland, Jr., State's Atty., Samuel Peregoff, Asst. State's Atty., Baltimore, on the brief, for appellee.
Before ANDERSON, MORTON, ORTH, and THOMPSON, JJ., and HARRY E. DYER, Jr. (specially assigned).
The Appellant, James Earl Howard, was convicted in the Criminal Court of Baltimore, in a non-jury trial, of receiving stolen goods and sentenced to four years in the Maryland Correctional Institution.
It appears that the prosecuting witness left her home for work at approximately 5:30 a. m. on September 8, 1965. Upon her return at 2:45 p. m., she found that her house had been entered by ripping off the screen of her front screen dor (both inner doors were unlocked) and that a sterco tape recorder, AM-FM portable radio, portable tape recorder, and a white jacket had been removed from the front bedroom.
The investigating officer testified that as a result of information received from the prosecuting witness that the Appellant had been seen at her home the preceding day knocking on her door and looking in the window, he talked with the Appellant on the street corner at about 9:45 p. m. on the evening of September 8th. The Appellant admitted having been on the premises the previous day, but denied any knowledge of the articles taken therefrom. When reminded by the officer that the missing articles had been sent home by a soldier serving in Viet Nam, the Appellant stated that, although he had nothing to do with breaking into the home, he had received the stolen articles from the individuals who had taken them. He said he received them in an alley behind the house from which they were taken, sold the tape recorder and radio to a Mr. Ashby and gave the coat to a girl. He told the officer where the articles could be found and all the articles except the coat were recovered. The girl to whom he said he had given the coat denied ever having received it.
At the trial, the Appellant admitted that when first questioned by the officer he denied any knowledge of the missing articles. He further testified that when the officer enumerated the articles taken, 'I told him I knew where they was at.' He knew where they were located, he added, because he had been confronted with 'associates' of his who had the articles in their possession and had asked him where they could dispose of them.
The prosecuting witness testified, in rebuttal, that she talked with the Appellant after the preliminary hearing and he told her 'that he didn't actually go into her house but he knew the boys who did'; and that 'he was out in the back of the alley'.
The four elements necessary to constitute the offense of receiving stolen goods are (1) receiving, (2) stolen property, (3) with knowledge that it is stolen, and (4) with fraudulent intent. Jordan v. State, 219 Md. 36, 43, 148 A.2d 292 (1959).
The Appellant contends that there is no evidence that the crime of receiving stolen goods was committed. He concedes that the trial judge had the right to believe the officer's testimony with regard to the Appellant's statement to him, rather than believe the Appellant's denial that any such statement was given. However, he apparently argues that the statement to the officer was uncorroborated and, standing alone, was not sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction.
It is true that an extrajudicial confession or admission of guilt by an accused, standing alone, is insufficient to prove that a crime was committed by the accused. However, as the Court of Appeals of Maryland stated in Bradbury v. State, 233 Md. 421, 425, 197 A.2d 126, 128 (1964): '* * * the independent evidence necessary to support the confession need not be 'full and positive'...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Butina v. State
...independent of the confession that it was wilfully and maliciously set. See Whitmer v. State, 1 Md.App. 127, 227 A.2d 761; Howard v. State, 1 Md.App. 379, 230 A.2d 115. We think it clear also that the evidence was sufficient to establish the criminal agency of the appellant. He was driving ......
-
Reeves v. State
...was illegal, since they were not the fruits of an unreasonable search. Nadolski v. State, 1 Md.App. 304, 229 A.2d 598; Howard v. State, 1 Md.App. 379, 230 A.2d 115; Fisher v. State, 1 Md.App. 505, 231 A.2d 720. The Appellant's reliance on Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 83 S.Ct. 40......
-
Ryon v. State
...v. State, 1 Md.App. 304, 229 A.2d 598 (1967), cert. den., 247 Md. 741, 389 U.S. 1023, 88 S.Ct. 599, 19 L.Ed.2d 670; Howard v. State, 1 Md.App. 379, 230 A.2d 115 (1967); Stackhouse v. State, 1 Md.App. 399, 230 A.2d 358 (1967); Fisher v. State, 1 Md.App. 505, 231 A.2d 720 (1967); Boone v. Sta......
-
State v. Zimmerman
...before the lower court and it cannot be raised here for the first time. Sherrod v. State, 1 Md.App. 433, 230 A.2d 679; Howard v. State, 1 Md.App. 379, 230 A.2d 115; Charles v. State, 1 Md.App. 222, 228 A.2d 620. While an accused must be afforded genuine and effective representation going to......