Knight v. State
| Decision Date | 23 June 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 423,423 |
| Citation | 7 Md.App. 282,254 A.2d 379 |
| Parties | James Joseph KNIGHT v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
James F. Garrity, Baltimore, for appellant.
John J. Garrity, Asst. Atty. Gen., Baltimore, with whom were on brief: Francis B. Burch, Atty. Gen., Charles E. Moylan, Jr., State's Atty., for Baltimore City, Philip E. Epstein, Asst. State's Atty, for Baltimore City, Baltimore, for appellee.
Before MURPHY, ANDERSON, MORTON, ORTH and THOMPSON, JJ.
James Joseph Knight, the appellant, was convicted in the Criminal Court of Baltimore more of being a rogue and vagabond and of possessing narcotic paraphernalia. Judge David Ross, presiding without a jury, sentenced him to consecutive two year terms. Knight contends articles seized at the time of the arrest were improperly admitted into evidence, and the evidence was not sufficient to support the verdicts.
At approximately 1:30 a. m. on July 14, 1968, Melvin Anderson secured a shoe repair shop which he operated in Baltimore City, and prepared to ride home with another companion, Thomas Jenkins. As they were walking to the car, parked thirty feet away, Anderson noticed two men looking in the window of a restaurant which was located adjacent to the shoe store. As there had been numerous storehouse breakings in the vicinity, he called his companion's attention to their actions. After deciding to observe the two men further, Anderson and Jenkins circled the block, alighted from the vehicle, and took up a position which allowed them to observe both men, one of whom was later identified as Knight, standing on a nearby street corner. After Knight's companion walked from the street corner into an alley located behind the shoe store, Knight also disappeared into the alley. Anderson then decided to go around to the front of his store while his companion, Jenkins, was to go to the rear of the store. As Jenkins reached the alley, he observed Knight in the enclosed backyard of the shoe shop near the rear entrance. Jenkins testified that he asked Knight what he was doing back there, and he replied, Jenkins then replied, At about that time, Jenkins testified that he heard something that sounded to him like dishes rattling, and he thereupon grabbed Knight by the arm and escorted him to the front of the shoe shop.
Jenkins further testified that as he was escorting Knight around the alley, 'Mr. Anderson ran past me going to the back of his shop. Mr. Anderson had proceeded up Fulton to go to the front door of his shop. He ran past me and said, 'Somebody is in there' * * * I kept this fellow, Knight, with me. I wasn't going to let him go. I walked him right around to the front of Mr. Anderson's shop * * *. By this time, about approximately maybe less than a minute, Mr. Anderson ran back and said, 'He got away. The fellow came through the window". Jenkins also testified that he observed Knight to be carrying a shopping bag, which was rolled up under his arm, 'like you see people walking down the street tucking a newspaper under their arm.'
Anderson testified that after he had observed the men go into the alley, he went to the front entrance of his store where he looked through a large window and noticed a man inside. Anderson stated,
Anderson testified that stock valued from $400 to $600 was in the store at the time, that a nickel coin machine was broken open, and nickels were scattered all over the floor, and that the premises had been completely secured...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dawson v. State
...321, 328, 251 A.2d 230. See also Taylor v. State, 238 Md. 424, 209 A.2d 595; Jones v. State, 242 Md. 95, 218 A.2d 7; Knight v. State, 7 Md.App. 282, 254 A.2d 379 (although these cases involve probable cause for warrantless arrests based upon hearsay information, the principle involved as to......
-
Dawson v. State
... ... Kapler v. State, 194 Md. 580, 71 A.2d 860; Ward v. State, 9 Md.App. 583, 591-592, 267 A.2d 255; Grimm v. State, 6 Md.App. 321, 328, 251 A.2d 230. See also Taylor v. State, 238 Md. 424, 209 A.2d 595; Jones v. State, 242 Md. 95, 218 A.2d 7; Knight" ... v. State, 7 Md.App. 282, 254 A.2d 379 (although these cases involve probable cause for warrantless arrests based upon hearsay information, the principle involved as to the trustworthiness of a witness-informant would also apply to cases involving applications for warrants).' ... \xC2" ... ...
-
State v. Lohss
...321, 328, 251 A.2d 230. See also Taylor v. State, 238 Md. 424, 209 A.2d 595; Jones v. State, 242 Md. 95, 218 A.2d 7; Knight v. State, 7 Md.App. 282, 254 A.2d 379.' See also cases cited in the concurring opinion of Moylan, J. in Dawson v. State, 14 Md.App. 18, 34, n. 9, 284 A.2d 861. Housley......
-
King v. State
...A.2d 255 (reliable information furnished by two cleaning maids at a motel who observed narcotics in a motel room); Knight v. State, 7 Md.App. 282, 285-286, 254 A.2d 379 (reliable information furnished by two witnesses to a crime); Edwards v. State, 7 Md.App. 108, 112, f. 1, 253 A.2d 764 (re......