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 of a scheme whereby he was to try to cash the bonds for Freddy; that Freddy had given him the bonds and wallet; and that Freddy was with him at all times that he had possession. The trial court rejected this explanation as unreasonable, found the appellant not guilty of receiving, and entered verdicts of guilty of house-breaking and larceny.
Since the trial court was not required to believe the explanation proffered by the appellant, the convictions were proper under the evidence. Jordan v. State,...
To continue reading
Request your 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......