Marshall v. State

• Citation: 35 A.2d 115,182 Md. 379
• Decision Date: 14 December 1943
• Docket Number: 35.
• Parties: MARSHALL v. STATE.
• Court: Court of Appeals of Maryland

35 A.2d 115

182 Md. 379

MARSHALL v. STATE.

No. 35.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

December 14, 1943

Appeal from Circuit Court, Queen Anne's County; William R Horney, Judge.

Joseph Marshall was convicted of grand larceny, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

J Edgar Harvey, Asst. Atty. Gen. (William C. Walsh, Atty. Gen and Harry C. Butler, State's Atty., of Centerville, on the brief), for appellee.

Before SLOAN, C.J., and DELAPLAINE, MARBURY, GRASON, MELVIN, ADAMS, and BAILEY, JJ.

GRASON Judge.

On May 5, 1943, the Grand Jury of Queen Anne's County returned an indictment, containing three counts, against Joseph Marshall. The counts charged: 1. Housebreaking; 2. Grand larceny; and 3. Receiving stolen goods.

A demurrer was interposed to the indictment generally and to each count thereof. The court held the first count defective and the second and third counts good. The ruling of the court as to the last two counts is not discussed in the brief of the appellant, nor by his counsel in this court, and will be considered abandoned. Rule 38, section 4 of this court.

In passing, it may be noted that the ruling as to the last two counts in the indictment is proper as they follow well-known forms long used in this State. The case proceeded to trial on the second and third counts.

On the 7th of April, 1943 (whether in the day or night is not disclosed by the record) the dwelling of Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Marsalis was unlawfully entered. At that time there was stolen from the house a metal strong box containing $497 in cash, ten War Savings Bonds of the denomination of $25 each, and thirteen articles of jewelry, the property of Mrs. Marsalis. The total value of the contents of this strong box is charged to be $13,647.

Marshall was apprehended, but on what day the record does not state. On April 10, 1943, he was questioned at the Centerville jail by Trooper Andrews, Sgt. Latham, Sgt. Randall, Sheriff Perkins and Deputy Sheriff Hardesty. On Sunday morning, April 11th, at about 2:30 o'clock, Trooper Andrews, Sergeants Randall and Latham, went with Marshall to the graden behind his house. There, in the presence of Marshall and these officers, Andrews dug up the strong box and carefully noted its contents. At the trial, the court asked Andrews: 'Are you familiar with the present contents of the box?' To which he replied: 'Yes, sir.' The box was then offered in evidence. The witness then examined the contents of the box and testified that he found 'the same articles in it as were there the night it was dug up on Marshall's property'.

While eight exceptions to rulings on evidence are reserved, seven are variations of the same ruling and may be considered as one, and the other is so trivial that there is really only one question to be considered.

While Mrs. Marsalis was testifying, the court asked the State's Attorney if he asked the witness about the value of the property alleged to have been stolen. The defendant objected to the court asking the State's Attorney this question, and it constitutes the first exception. It is contended that this action of the court before the jury was prejudicial to the defendant. With this we do not agree. The purpose of the trial was to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. This objective should not be frustrated by a mere technicality. The value of the articles stolen had to be proved and the calling of the State's Attorney's attention, by the court, to this omission was proper, and the contention that the prisoner was prejudiced thereby is not convincing.

The second series of exceptions is based on the argument that the officers held out an inducement to the accused that caused him to make a confession of guilt; that because of such inducement Marshall took them to where the box containing the stolen property was buried, and inasmuch as a confession of guilt by a prisoner obtained by inducements is not admissible in evidence against him, neither is the box containing the stolen property admissible, because where it was buried was disclosed by reason of the confession so obtained. At the trial there was an attempt to offer what was supposed to be a confession. The jury was excused and the sheriff called by the State to lay a foundation for its admission. He was questioned as to the talk had with the traverser on April 10th and morning of April 11th. The sheriff testified: 'Andrews told the prisoner it was better to tell the truth; said he didn't want him to tell him no story about it; said he wanted him to tell the truth', and when asked by the court to tell what Andrews said to the prisoner he answered; 'Well, he said to him, 'Joe, a good many people does wrong and its always, if you do these things, its always best to tell the truth about it. Don't tell me a lie about it. It's best for you to tell the truth. I don't want you to tell me no lie' and Joe said, 'I am going to tell you truth.'' It appears that the State abandoned its effort to introduce a confession the prisoner might have made. It is assumed by counsel for traverser that a confession was actually made but whether a direct confession of guilt was made we are unable to determine by this record. We are asked to infer from the fact that Marshall took the officers where the box containing the stolen goods was buried, he made a confession of guilt. This we cannot do.

"Guilty...