Johnson v. State, 188
| Decision Date | 05 December 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 188,188 |
| Citation | 2 Md.App. 486,236 A.2d 41 |
| Parties | Harold Phillip JOHNSON v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Norman N. Yankellow, Baltimore, and G. Denmead LeViness, Baltimore, on brief, for appellant.
Thomas A. Garland, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Francis B. Burch, Atty. Gen., Charles E. Moylan, Jr., and Martin Levinson, State's Atty. and Asst. State's Atty. for Baltimore City, respectively, Baltimore, on brief, for appellee.
Before ANDERSON, MORTON, ORTH, and THOMPSON, JJ., and J. DUDLEY DIGGES, Special Judge.
The Appellant, Harold Phillip Johnson, and his co-defendant below, Charles R. Brown, Jr., were convicted of unauthorized use of an automobile under Md. Code, Art. 27, Sec. 349, by Judge J. Gilbert Prendergast, sitting without a jury, in the Criminal Court of Baltimore and each was sentenced to the Maryland Correctional Institution for an indeterminate period, not to exceed three years. Both appealed to this Court but Brown subsequently dismissed his appeal.
Johnson's sole contention is that the evidence was legally insufficient to sustain his conviction.
The record indicates that on March 8, 1966, at approximately 3:00 A.M., a police officer on routine patrol, observed a 1957 Chevrolet automobile parked on a public street with exhaust fumes emitting therefrom. Upon investigation, he found that the temporary license plates thereon had expired and, as he approached the car, the two individuals in the front seat 'ducked down'. Upon questioning, Brown, who occupied the driver's seat, admitted that he did not own the car, but stated he had a title for it. The title he produced was for a car registered as 'junk'. The officer was unable to check the serial number because the serial number plate had been removed from the car. Brown produced a key for the ignition and, according to the officer, Johnson, who was sitting in the front passenger seat, produced one which he said was for the trunk. The officer noted that the car had been sprayed with white paint and he observed 'small jumper cables' on the front seat.
Brown and Johnson were thereupon arrested and taken to the police station where Brown gave a written statement in which he admitted having taken the car three or four weeks before, but claimed that he took it from a location several miles from the place where the owner said she had last parked it. Johnson gave no statement, but testified in his own defense that he thought Brown owned the car and accounted for his presence in the car at the time of his arrest by asserting that he and Brown were awaiting the arrival of a friend of Brown's to accompany them to a produce terminal where they hoped to obtain temporary employment, although he had previously testified that he was regularly employed. He denied any knowledge of a piece of paper found in the car with his father's name thereon. He conceded that he had given an automobile key to the officer but claimed it was the key to a car that 'I used to own'. He admitted that at the time of his arrest he was on parole from a conviction for automobile larceny in 1965.
It is contended on Johnson's behalf that since there was no evidence that he was responsible for the larceny of the automobile, he could not be found guilty of unauthorized use. Such a contention, however, is based on a misconception of the elements constituting the crime.
The scope of the crime was delineated in Anello v. State, 201 Md. 164, 167, 93 A.2d 71, 72, as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hatcher v. State
...theft, this latter section does not require proof of the intent to steal the vehicle to sustain a conviction. As noted in Johnson v. State, 2 Md.App. 486, 1967[)] case, the scope of the crime of unauthorized use was delineated in Anello v. State, 201 Md. 164 at page 167. And the following i......
-
Allen v. State
...A.2d 917 (1960); Anello v. State, 201 Md. 164, 93 A.2d 71 (1952); Banks v. State, 2 Md.App. 373, 234 A.2d 798 (1967); Johnson v. State, 2 Md.App. 486, 236 A.2d 41 (1967). The 2002 (and current) version of the unauthorized use statute, entitled "unauthorized removal of property," is codified......
-
In re Landon G.
...in the continued use of the car after the original taking” is sufficient to render one guilty of the crime); Johnson v. State, 2 Md.App. 486, 490, 236 A.2d 41 (1967) (stating that “in order to convict for larceny of use it is not essential to prove that the accused took the property from th......
-
Henry v. State
...his custody or use of his property temporarily without intent to steal it. Anderson v. State, 3 Md.App. 85, 237 A.2d 813; Johnson v. State, 2 Md.App. 486, 236 A.2d 41. It is patent that an automobile cannot be taken with the intent both to steal it and not to steal it.' Id., at 22, of 8 Md.......