Lockard v. State
| Decision Date | 09 April 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 14,14 |
| Citation | 3 Md.App. 580,240 A.2d 312 |
| Parties | Patricia Annette LOCKARD v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
William F. Mosner, Towson, for appellant.
Bernard L. Silbert, Asst. Atty. Gen., with whom were Francis B. Burch, Atty. Gen., Charles E. Moylan, Jr. and Edward A. DeWaters, State's Atty. and Asst. State's Atty. for Baltimore City, on the brief, for appellee.
Before MURPHY, C. J., and ANDERSON, MORTON, ORTH and THOMPSON, JJ.
Patricia Annette Lockard complains of a conviction of obtaining money by false pretenses in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County in a trial before Judge John E. Raine sitting without a jury. She alleges that the evidence was insufficient to support her conviction and that a five (5) year sentence was excessive.
There was evidence on which the trial judge could have found that: Patricia Annette Lockard was identified as the woman who had a chance meeting with a certain Margaret C. O'Grady in Dundalk on May 22, 1966, when the latter struck up a conversation with her concerning flowers; and in an ensuing conversation, Lockard stated that her husband had been recently killed in an automobile accident. Mrs. O'Grady inquired if there was enough insurance for the family's protection, and appellant told her that she had received $5,000 which she then had with her in her purse and was looking for a place to deposit it. Mrs. O'Grady could not give her any recommendation. The conversation continued and Lockard stated that she lived in Essex where a lady was then baby-sitting for her four month old child, and she then recounted a recent meeting with another woman who told her that she had found a package containing $600 and some betting slips. This woman did not know what to do with the money, and Lockard said she told her to keep it.
After Lockard and Mrs. O'Grady conversed a while longer the lady who had allegedly found the $600 approached them and asked if Lockard had told anyone about the money. This third woman then joined the conversation and told the other two that she worked across the street for a lawyer and that she was going to ask him what to do about this found money. The third lady left the other two but returned a short while later telling them that, in addition to the $600, her 'boss' had found two one-thousand dollar bills in the envelope, and that he told her that she should just keep the money. The third lady and her 'boss' then decided it would be wise to give the other two ladies who knew of the incident the sum of $200 each to make sure they would keep quiet about it until 'this thing blows over,' but before giving each of them $200 the third lady's 'boss' wanted to make sure that both Lockard and Mrs. O'Grady had enough money to live on for four or five months, so she asked if both of them could show her that they had $1,200 that she could show to her 'boss.'
Mrs. O'Grady 'bit on it' and the third lady sent her and Lockard to Mrs. O'Grady's building and loan association where she was to withdraw the sum of $1,200 and bring it back with her. At the building and loan association Lockard represented herself 'to be a friend of the family' and stated that the $1,200 was for an 'emergency.' This was done, and the two returned to find the third lady waiting, whereupon Mrs. O'Grady and Lockard both gave the third lady envelopes or packages purporting to contain their $1,200.
Mrs. O'Grady stated
The third woman then took the envelopes across the street to show to her 'boss,' but returned shortly and said that his office was full of people so that she was not able to see him. She announced that she was going back and wait for him, and that the other two were to wait for her. After Lockard and Mrs....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Andresen v. State
...to his detriment.' See also Smith v. State, 237 Md. 573, 207 A.2d 493; Tumminello v. State, 10 Md.App. 612, 272 A.2d 77; Lockhard v. State, 3 Md.App. 580, 240 A.2d 312. The false pretenses perpetrated on Standard-Young Associates involved the sale of another of the lots in Section 10 of the......
-
Polisher v. State
...6) to his detriment. See Smith v. State, 237 Md. 573, 207 A.2d 493; Tumminello v. State, 10 Md.App. 612, 272 A.2d 77; Lockard v. State, 3 Md.App. 580, 240 A.2d 312; 2 Wharton's Criminal Law (Anderson) §§ 582-607, pp. 305-374; Perkings, Criminal Law (2d Ed.) pp. 296-321; Clark & Marshall, La......
-
Spillers v. State
...Spillers makes the frivolous contention that she did not obtain money by reasons of a false representation. In Lockard v. State, 3 Md.App. 580, 583, 240 A.2d 312, 313, we defined false pretenses as involving "(1) false representation of a past or existing fact; (2) made with intent to defra......
-
Madero v. State, 214
...7 Md.App. 1, 233 A.2d 342; Couture v. State, 7 Md.App. 269, 255 A.2d 84; Gordon v. State, 5 Md.App. 291, 246 A.2d 623; Lockard v. State, 3 Md.App. 580, 240 A.2d 312; Van v. State, 1 Md.App. 347, 230 A.2d The opinion goes on to define and distinguish the various common law and statutory thef......