Lucchesi v. State, 45
| Decision Date | 14 October 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 45,45 |
| Citation | 232 Md. 465,194 A.2d 266 |
| Parties | Samuel LUCCHESI and Milton Bevans v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Nelson R. Kandel, Baltimore (Alan H. Murrell, Baltimore, on the brief), for appellants.
Franklin Goldstein, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Thomas B. Finan, Atty. Gen., Baltimore, Frank H. Newell, III, and Gerard V. Caldwell, State's Atty. and Asst. State's Atty., for Baltimore County, Towson, on the brief), for appellee.
Before BRUNE, C. J., and HENDERSON, PRESCOTT, HORNEY and MARBURY, JJ.
Claiming that they were convicted of burglary and larceny on the uncorroborated testimony of accomplices, the defendants, Milton Bevans and Samuel Lucchesi, have appealed from the judgment entered on a general verdict of guilty by the court sitting without a jury.
Sometime between 2:00 p. m. on February 22 and 10:25 a. m. on February 23, 1962, the home of a stamp dealer was broken into and robbed of a stock of foreign and United States postage stamps, some Japanese propaganda match box covers and a portable television. At the time of the burglary, the dealer and his wife were away on a trip. None of the stolen property, with the exception of the match box covers and a few of the stamps, was recovered.
In August of 1962, Chester L. Jones was arrested on another charge and during the ensuing investigation was questioned about the burglary. He gave the police information which led to the arrest of Joseph Falice, who, in admitting that he had helped plan and execute the burglary, implicated the defendants as the other burglars and larceners.
Joseph Falice, the admitted accomplice, was called by the State as a witness and testified to the effect that several days prior to the burglary he and the defendants had attempted to sell a small collection of stamps to the stamp dealer. On the day of the burglary, Falice and the defendants 'went out to look at the house' again and 'parked across the street' from it. Between 6 and 6:30 o'clock that night they 'went back out to the place.' The house was then unoccupied. To gain entrance the front door was forced open. The defendants entered the house and took what they wanted while Falice stood at the door as a lookout. The stamps were removed from the premises in four suitcases and a sheet or pillow case and were carried to Falice's house. The next day the defendants brought Chester Jones to the house to appraise the stamps. Some of the stamps and the match box covers were given to Jones and the remainder of the stamps was disposed of in New York. The proceeds from the sale of the stamps were divided equally between Falice and the defendants. Neither Falice nor Jones knew the other prior to their meeting on this occasion.
Chester L. Jones testified to the effect that sometime in late February or early March of 1962, the defendants came to see him and requested him to obtain information concerning the value of stamps. They returned two days later, and Jones, who had some knowledge of stamp values, accompanied the defendants to Falice's house. With the aid of a borrowed stamp catalogue, Jones estimated the stamps to be worth from $10,000 to $15,000. Jones purchased some United States commemoratives for $15 and the money was divided then and there between the defendants and Falice. Jones was also given an envelope containing some foreign stamps and the match box covers which he sold for $1. At the trial, Jones admitted that he knew the stamps he received were stolen property, but denied he had participated in the burglary or theft.
There was other testimony. The stamp dealer's maid testified that when she came to work on February 23, 1962, she found the front door broken open, the office in disorder and a pillow case missing. Another maid, employed in a home across the street, had jotted down (for another reason) at about 2:00 p. m. on February 22, 1962, the license tag number of an automobile that had parked in front of her employer's home. The tag number was identified to be that of a motor vehicle registered in the name of one of the defendants.
Neither of the defendants testified.
The defendants contend that Chester Jones, as well as Joseph Falice, was an accomplice, and that there was no sufficient corroboration of the testimony either of Jones or Falice, or of both of them, to sustain the conviction. We hold that Jones was not an accomplice and further that, even if he had been, there was sufficient corroboration.
In order for Jones to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fabian v. State
...offenses but is a strictly independent nonaccomplice witness'. We think the court's conclusion was correct. In Lucchesi v. State, 232 Md. 465, 468, 194 A.2d 266, 268 (1963), Judge Horney for the Court reiterated the rule that for a person to be an accomplice it was necessary to show that he......
-
Brown v. State
...participation in the taking and asportation of the horses branded him as an accomplice of the appellant in this case. Lucchesi, Etc. v. State, 232 Md. 465, 194 A.2d 266; Watson v. State, 208 Md. 210, 117 A.2d 549. It is also significant that the appellant defended the indictment brought aga......
-
Keene v. State, 286
...follows the general rule that a thief and a receiver are not accomplices. Walker v. State, 242 Md. 715, 219 A.2d 4; Lucchesi and Beavins v. State, 232 Md. 465, 194 A.2d 266; Polansky v. State, 205 Md. 362, 109 A.2d 52. Although the problem has not been precisely presented to the Maryland Co......
-
Ballard v. State
...participant in a related but distinct offense.' 2 Wharton, Criminal Evidence (12th ed.), § 448, et seq. See also Lucchesi v. State, 232 Md. 465, 468, 194 A.2d 266 (1963). As was pointed out in Harriday v. State, 228 Md. 593, 596, 182 A.2d 40, 42 (1962), the 'test commonly applied as to whet......