Lewis v. State
| Decision Date | 12 June 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 290,290 |
| Citation | 171 A.2d 244,225 Md. 474 |
| Parties | Waverly LEWIS v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
George F. Zverina, LaPlata, for appellant.
Eli Baer, Spec. Asst. Atty. Gen. (Thomas B. Finan, Atty. Gen., and Joseph S. Kaufman, Deputy Atty. Gen., on the brief), for appellee.
Before BRUNE, C. J., and HENDERSON, PRESCOTT, HORNEY, and MARBURY, JJ.
The appellant(Waverly Lewis) contends that the evidence was insufficient to convict him either of breaking into the house of another in the daytime or of larceny.
Sometime during the day of May 17, 1960, the house of Everett W. Mitchell and his wife in Charles County was broken into and ransacked, and a number of United States Savings bonds (registered in the names of the Mitchells) and other articles, including a man's wallet, were taken therefrom.In the afternoon of the same day Waverly Lewis and a recent acquaintance (known only as 'Freddy' to the appellant) were arrested by District of Columbia police in a Washington restaurant.In a routine search of the appellant, the bonds were found wedged between his belt and the small of his back and the wallet (containing an identification card of Everett W. Mitchell) was also found on his person.At first the appellant was reluctant to disclose where he had gotten the stolen property, but he explained later to one of the officers that he was merely holding the bonds and wallet for another person and that he did not know the man that gave them to him except by a nickname which he could not recall.He further explained that the property had been 'handed to him' by one of two unidentified persons while he was sitting in an automobile with five other persons besides himself.
In testifying on his own behalf at the trial before the court without a jury, the appellant told a different story.There he admitted that he knew the property was stolen, but claimed that he was not the thief and further stated that his possession was part...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Colvin v. State
...property, absent a reasonable explanation for possession, is evidence that the possessor stole the property. Lewis v. State, 225 Md. 474, 475-76, 171 A.2d 244, 245 (1961). Appellant offered no reasonable explanation for having the property in his possession. However, he argues that these it......
-
Richardson v. State of Maryland
...172, 179 A.2d 338 (1962) (receiving stolen goods); Ponder v. State, 227 Md. 570, 572, 17 A.2d 839 (1962) (burglary); Lewis v. State, 225 Md. 474, 475-76, 171 A.2d 244 (1961) (burglary and larceny); Booker v. State, 225 Md. 183, 186, 170 A.2d 203 (1961) (armed robbery); Glaros v. State, 223 ......
-
Boswell v. State
...State, 223 Md. 244, 164 A.2d 284; Glaros v. State, 223 Md. 272, 164 A.2d 461; Booker v. State, 225 Md. 183, 170 A.2d 203; Lewis v. State, 225 Md. 474, 171 A.2d 244; Dyson v. State, 226 Md. 18, 171 A.2d 505; Ponder v. State, 227 Md. 570, 177 A.2d 839; Boggs v. State, 228 Md. 168, 179 A.2d 33......
-
Molter v. State
...Butz v. State, 221 Md. 68, 77–78, 156 A.2d 423 (1959); Glaros v. State, 223 Md. 272, 280, 164 A.2d 461 (1960); Lewis v. State, 225 Md. 474, 475–76, 171 A.2d 244 (1961); Byrd v. State, 229 Md. 148, 182 A.2d 47 (1962); Stapf v. State, 230 Md. 106, 108, 185 A.2d 496 (1962); Cason v. State, 230......
-
State's Burden of Production As To Elements of the Crime
...was the thief based on finding recently stolen goods in the defendant's trunk seven to nine days after the theft. See Lewis v. State, 225 Md. 474, 475-76 (1961); Glaros v. State, 223 Md. 272, 280 (1960); Butz, 221 Md. at 77-78; Felkner v. State, 218 Md. 300, 305 (1958); Debinski, 194 Md. at......