Jefferies v. State

• Decision Date: 15 January 1969
• Docket Number: No. 133,133
• Citation: 5 Md.App. 630,248 A.2d 807
• Parties: Thomas William JEFFERIES v. STATE of Maryland.
• Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

Page 630

5 Md.App. 630

248 A.2d 807

Thomas William JEFFERIES v. STATE of Maryland.

No. 133.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.

Jan. 15, 1969.

Solomon Baylor, Baltimore, for appellant.

Thomas N. Biddison, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., with whom were Francis B. Burch, Atty. Gen., Charles E. Moylan, Jr., and Elliott Goldberg, State's Atty. and Asst. State's Atty., for Baltimore City, respectively, Baltimore, on the brief for appellee.

Before MURPHY, C. J., and ANDERSON, MORTON, ORTH, and THOMPSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Thomas William Jefferies, the appellant, complains of a conviction for petty larceny by the Criminal Court of Baltimore, Judge William J. O'Donnell presiding without a jury. He was sentenced to a term of one year consecutive to an eighteen month term which had been previously imposed in connection with a different crime. On appeal he alleged that the trial court reached inconsistent verdicts on the same evidence, and that the trial court 'abused its discretion with officious intermeddling in the prosecution and defense of the appellant.'

The evidence disclosed that a pharmacy was broken on August 26, 1967 at approximately 2:00 p.m. and that articles in the value of approximately $10,000 were taken. In response to a telephone call that a burglary was in progress Baltimore police officers discovered Jefferies and a co-defendant carrying a small quantity of the goods away from the store. The co-defendant entered a plea of guilty to receiving stolen goods which was accepted by the trial court prior to the beginning of Jefferies' trial.

Jefferies alleges that his conviction of petty larceny was invalid because it was inconsistent with that of his co-defendant who was permitted to plead guilty to receiving. ¹ Jefferies cites no authority which supports his proposition. In Boone v. State 3 Md.App. 11, 31, 237 A.2d 787 it was contended that because a co-defendant had been permitted to plead guilty to murder in the second degree that the appellant could not be convicted of murder in the first degree. We rejected the contention stating: 'The fact of the conviction or acquittal of one person charged with a crime is neither relevant nor material to the issue of the guilt or innocence of another person charged with the same crime as a co-perpetrator.' Contrary to the proposition taken by the appellant, the admission of evidence of the conviction or acquittal of a co-defendant at a prior trial would be error. Although there is some authority for the contrary, the majority rule is that even when two or more co-defendants are tried jointly there is no need to demonstrate rational consistency between the verdicts as to all defendants excluding, of course, a crime, such as conspiracy, which requires the participation of more than one person. See 22 A.L.R....