Howard v. State, 283
| Decision Date | 28 April 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 283,283 |
| Citation | 209 A.2d 604,238 Md. 623 |
| Parties | Leonard Patrick HOWARD v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Irving B. Klitzner, Baltimore, for appellant.
Thomas B. Finan, Atty. Gen., R. Randolph Victor, Asst. Atty. Gen., Charles E. Moylan, Jr., and Donald Needle, State's Atty. and Asst. State's Atty., respectively, for Baltimore City, Baltimore, on the brief, for appellee.
Before HAMMOND, MARBURY, SYBERT, OPPENHEIMER and BARNES, JJ.
The appellant, convicted of burglary and sentenced to a term of five years, challenges on appeal the sufficiency of the evidence. He contends that the testimony most damaging to him was legally insufficient because it came from an alleged participant in the burglary and from his relatives.
These witnesses clearly were competent to testify and, this being so, the credibility and weight of their testimony was for the trier of fact. The record does not show him to have been clearly wrong in accepting their versions of what occurred.
Furthermore, there was other evidence sufficient not only to corroborate that of the accomplice but of itself to sustain the conviction. When he was arrested, appellant was wearing a pair of shoes which had been recently stolen and he could give no reasonable explanation of how they came into his possession. The trial judge could properly draw from the circumstances the inference of fact that he was the burglar. See Stapf v. State, 230 Md. 106, 185 A.2d 496.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Richardson v. State of Maryland, Civ. A. No. 20868.
...652, 656-63, 224 A.2d 668 (1966), cert. denied, 386 U.S. 947, 87 S.Ct. 984, 17 L.Ed.2d 877 (1967) (housebreaking); Howard v. State, 238 Md. 623, 624, 209 A.2d 604 (1965) (burglary); Stapf v. State, 230 Md. 106, 108, 185 A.2d 496 (1962) (larceny); Boggs v. State, 228 Md. 168, 172, 179 A.2d 3......
-
Boswell v. State
...State, 230 Md. 106, 185 A.2d 496; Brooks v. State, 235 Md. 23, 200 A.2d 177; Matthews v. State, 237 Md. 384, 206 A.2d 714; Howard v. State, 238 Md. 623, 209 A.2d 604.3 See for example: Gamble v. State, 2 Md.App. 271, 234 A.2d 158; Frey v. State, 3 Md.App. 38, 237 A.2d 774; Wilkins v. State,......
-
Molter v. State
...... but would also tend to support an inference that as the possessor he was the burglar as well as the thief.”); Howard v. State, 238 Md. 623, 624, 209 A.2d 604 (1965) (“When he was arrested, appellant was wearing a pair of shoes which had been recently stolen and he could give no reasonab......
-
Brewer v. Mele
...the theft was compounded, that the possessor was also the burglar, Anglin v. State, 244 Md. 652, 224 A.2d 668 (1966); Howard v. State, 238 Md. 623, 209 A.2d 604 (1965); Boggs v. State, 228 Md. 168, 179 A.2d 338 (1962); Ponder v. State, 227 Md. 570, 177 A.2d 839 (1962); Oden v. State, 223 Md......