Juratovac v. State

• Decision Date: 10 November 1949
• Docket Number: 12.
• Citation: 69 A.2d 247,193 Md. 561
• Parties: JURATOVAC et al. v. STATE.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

69 A.2d 247

193 Md. 561

JURATOVAC et al. v. STATE.

No. 12.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

November 10, 1949

John Ronald Juratovac and Ernest W. Appitito were convicted in the Circuit Court for Howard County, James Clark, J., of breaking into a garage to commit a felony, of feloniously stealing a safe, truck and some money, and of breaking into a garage and stealing such articles, and they appealed.

The Court of Appeals, Marbury, C.J., dismissed the appeal on the ground that it was without power to review the sufficiency of the evidence.

Joel J. Hochman, Baltimore (Jerome A. Loughran Ellicott City, and Reuben Shiling, Baltimore, on the brief) for appellants.

Hall Hammond, Atty Gen., Kenneth C. Proctor, Asst. Atty. Gen (Daniel M. Murray, Jr. State's Atty., Howard County Ellicott City, on the brief), for appellee.

Before MARBURY, C.J., and DELAPLAINE, COLLINS, GRASON, HENDERSON and MARKELL, JJ.

MARBURY Chief Justice.

Appellants were found guilty by the Circuit Court for Howard County sitting as a jury, on three counts of an information in which they were charged with breaking in a garage to commit a felony, with feloniously stealing a safe, truck and some money, and with breaking in a garage and stealing the same articles. The charges were made under the provisions of Sections 34 and 35 of Article 27 of the Code. Each of the appellants was sentenced to ten years in the Maryland Penitentiary.

The sole contention made by the appellants is that the conviction was based upon the uncorroborated testimony of two accomplices. The State contends that there is some corroboration, particularly with respect to the appellant Juratovac. Apart from this, the State says that this Court has no authority to look into the question of the sufficiency of the evidence because, there was no objection to the admission of any of it, nor any ruling of the trial court on such an objection, and the appeal is simply from the verdict and judgment. It has been held in a long line of cases beginning with League v. State, 36 Md. 257, and running through Swann v. State, Md., 63 A.2d 324 and Slansky v. State, Md., 63 A.2d 599, that a court sitting without a jury is, by analogy, in the same position as a jury with respect to the facts in a criminal case. The trial court is the sole and final judge of the sufficiency of the evidence, and its determination on this question cannot be reviewed by this Court. It is true that we said in the case of Lanasa v. State, 109 Md. 602, 71 A. 1058, that upon the uncorroborated evidence of accomplices the rule does not permit a conviction to stand, and this has also been reiterated in other cases such as Wolf v State, 143 Md. 489, 122 A. 641, ...