Malloy v. State
| Decision Date | 21 June 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 299,299 |
| Citation | 243 A.2d 649,4 Md.App. 420 |
| Parties | John Archie MALLOY v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
John W. Mitchell, Upper Marloro, for appellant.
H. Edgar Lentz, Asst. Atty. Gen., with whom were Francis B. burch, Atty. Gen., Arthur A. Marshall, Jr. and John J. Garrity, State's Atty. and Asst. State's Atty. for Prince George's Co. respectively, on the brief, for appellee.
Before MURPHY, C. J., and ANDERSON, MORTON, ORTH, and THOMPSON, JJ.
John Archie Malloy, the appellant, was convicted of petty larceny in a jury trial in the Circuit Court, for Prince George's County. He was sentenced to the jurisdiction of the Department of Correction for six months. On appeal he contends that his motion for judgment of acquittal should have been granted, and that there was an error in the instructions to the jury.
There was evidence from which the jury could find that: On August 17, 1967, a little after 2:00 P.M., Malloy, with three other men, Jewell, Webster and Blackledge, entered a Drug Fair Store on Greenbelt Road in Prince George's County, Maryland. Malloy and Jewell went to the sunglass rack where they proceeded to look over the merchandise and try on various sunglasses, staying there ten or fifteen minutes. Webster, another of the three men, was between the first two and the store's office. Blackledge entered the office, took some money from the safe, and climbed over a wall separating the office from the store. He ran some 400 yards to another store, Klein's, which the entered. Watts, the manager of the Drug Fair Store, observed Jewell and Malloy together at the sunglass rack, as well as Webster nearby. Their actions attracted his attention. Later he observed Blackledge's head appearing over the top of the office wall and started toward him, going between Jewell and Malloy but was blocked by Webster whom he pushed into another sunglass rack. Webster then grabbed the manager and said, 'Man, what are you trying to do?' Malloy pulled the manager from behind while the manager was engaged in the scuffle.
Jewell, Webster and Malloy left the Drug, Fair, got into their automobile, drove to Klein's and sounded the horn of the car just as Blackledge entered Klein's. The other three also entered Klein's where all four were apprehended. Malloy, upon questioning by the police, denied any knowledge of the crime or that he knew Blackledge. Blackledge on the witness stand admitted knowing the other three but denied they were in any way involved in the larceny which he admitted.
Malloy's defense was that he was an innocent bystander and that, although his actions in interfering with the manager undoubtedly aided in the escape of Blackledge, that the aiding was without knowledge that a crime had been committed. Against this background the instructions of the court on the subject of the specific crime contained only the following:
'At common law there are no accessories to a misdemeanor but all persons who aid or encourage the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cooper v. State
...away.' We find that the court properly instructed on every essential point of law supported by the evidence. Rule 756 b; Malloy v. State, 4 Md.App. 420, 243 A.2d 649. We observe that a factual situation comparable to Midgett was not existent here. On the evidence, including even his own tes......
-
Mason v. State
...Md.App. 99, 105, 253 A.2d 759; Halcomb v. State, 6 Md.App. 32, 250 A.2d 119; Gordon v. State, 5 Md.App. 102, 245 A.2d 401; Malloy v. State, 4 Md.App. 420, 243 A.2d 649; Huber v. State, 2 Md.App. 245, 234 A.2d 264; Tipton v. State, 1 Md.App. 556, 232 A.2d 289; Maryland Rule 756 In declining ......
-
Peterson v. State, 508
...Md.App. 99, 105, 253 A.2d 759; Halcomb v. State, 6 Md.App. 32, 250 A.2d 119; Gordon v. State, 5 Md.App. 291, 246 A.2d 623; Malloy v. State, 4 Md.App. 420, 243 A.2d 649; Huber v. State, 2 Md.App. 245, 234 A.2d 264; Tipton v. State, 1 Md.App. 556, 232 A.2d 289; Maryland Rule 756b. For present......
-
Gordon v. State
...in a criminal case to give an advisory instruction on every essential question or point of law supported by the evidence. Malloy v. State, 4 Md.App. 420, 243 A.2d 649; Huber v. State, 2 Md.App. 245, 234 A.2d 264; Tipton v. State, 1 Md.App. 556, 232 A.2d 289. We think the court committed err......