Martel v. State
| Decision Date | 20 January 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 37,37 |
| Citation | 157 A.2d 437,221 Md. 294 |
| Parties | Pierre Edward MARTEL v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Harry Goldman, Jr., Baltimore (Whitlock & Goldman, Baltimore, on the brief), for appellant.
Robert C. Murphy, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen. (C. Ferdmand Sybert, Atty. Gen., Robert S. Rothenhoefer, State's Atty., for Frederick County, Frederick, Edward J. Lynch, Deputy State's Atty. for Frederick County, Frederick, on the brief), for appellee.
Before BRUNE, C. J., and HENDERSON, HAMMOND, PRESCOTT and HORNEY, JJ.
Pierre Edward Martel was convicted by a jury in the Circuit Court for Frederick County of larceny after trust. He tells us on appeal that there was no evidence before the court that the crime was committed in Frederick County, and that he was deprived of due process of law because he was held in jail for some months without having been brought before a magistrate, and because of procedural irregularities in the proceedings before trial.
Not one of the grounds relied on was raised below and not one is available to the appellant here.
Martel, as the bartender of the Jeffersonian Democratic Club of Frederick, was the custodian of the bar change fund of $200 and the collector of dues from the members. The moneys of which he had charge were kept in a metal box which he took home each night when he finished work. On December 21, 1958, he took the box containing about $300 home with him, but did not report for work on Monday, December 22, as he was supposed to do. He says he was on the way to work in his car with the box after having drunk four beers, when a stranger asked him to push his stalled car. He refused, but started to drive the man to a gas station. The stranger offered him a drink, which he took, and that was the last thing he remembered until he woke up several hours later on a street in Baltimore, sans car, box and money save thirty-five dollars. He looked for his car for two hours and then, realizing he was 'in trouble' because he 'had been careless with the money and it was gone,' registered at a hotel in Baltimore under the name of O. Martel of Holyoke, Massachusetts. He says he stayed in the hotel for nine days, coming out once a day for a meal and to look for his car. Finally, he telephoned his girl friend, with whom he had been living as man and wife, and was persuaded to return to Frederick, where he surrendered to police who had a warrant for his arrest.
The State showed that on the afternoon of December 22 Martel purchased two fifths of whisky and twelve bottles of beer at a liquor store in Frederick and paid for the purchase with a twenty dollar bill, and that the car with the empty box, with only a few cents in change in it, had been found in Bethesda, Maryland, some time in January. Martel had never notified either the Baltimore or Frederick police that either the car or the box was missing. He denied that he had purchased the liquor on Monday, December 22, saying the purchase had been made on the previous Friday.
When Martel surrendered to the police in Frederick, he was placed in jail on December 31. On the following February 19, the grand jury indicted him for the larceny of $350. On February 27, he pleaded not guilty. The court asked him if he had counsel and he replied that he had attempted to secure a lawyer whom he named but was unable to do so because he had no money. Thereupon, the court appointed as his counsel the lawyer whom he had wanted to represent him, one who has had wide experience in the trial of criminal cases. (He is not of counsel on appeal, other lawyers having been appointed for this aspect of the case.)
The indictment did not charge the place of offense and, on March 10, 1959, after the appointment of counsel, it was stetted when a petition was filed by Martel representing that he was confined in the Frederick County jail charged 'with the offense of larceny after trust and grand larceny, said offenses allegedly having been committed in Frederick County, Maryland,' and saying that 'he desires to waive his right of action by the Grand Jury and requests trial for aforesaid charges before the Circuit Court for Frederick County on criminal information to be filed by the State's Attorney for Frederick County, Maryland, which said criminal information shall formally set forth the charges against him,' and prayed that he be given an early trial. The motion was signed by his lawyer, as the statute, Code (1957), Art. 27, Sec. 592, expressly says may be done.
On March 13 Martel was arraigned in open court and pleaded not guilty. The trial took place that day. At the conclusion of the case, both sides told the court they had no request for instructions to the jury, and Judge Schnauffer told the jury only that if they found from the evidence and the law presented to them that the defendant was guilty as charged, 'your verdict will be guilty,' but if, on the other hand, they did not feel the State had proven the charge, the verdict should be not guilty. There was no exception to the charge and no request for amplification.
Since Martel did not ask for a directed verdict and took no exception to the court's instructions to the jury, the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to support the finding of the jury, that he did in fact voluntarily convert his employer's funds, contrary to Code (1957), Art. 27, Sec. 353, is not open on appeal. Harris v. State, 219 Md. 405, 149 A.2d 778; Bulluck v. State, 219 Md. 67, 148 A.2d 433.
Appellant is not helped by claiming that it was not proven that venue properly was laid in Frederick County. The matter is not jurisdictional in the fundamental sense so that the question could be raised at any time and reviewed on appeal as in Bowen v. State, 206 Md. 368, 375, 111 A.2d 844, where it is reiterated that an offense against the laws of the State of Maryland can be punished by a Maryland court only when committed within its territory. Rather, the question is one of venue. There is no evidence that appellant was ever out of the State. His own testimony was that he blacked out in Frederick and woke up several hours later in Baltimore. In embezzlement, the rule is that proper venue is the county where the act of appropriation or conversion took place, or where the intent to embezzle was formed, or where the property was entrusted, or where the accused is under an obligation to account. Bowen v. State, supra; 18 Am.Jur. Embezzlement Sec. 65. Almost always in the case of embezzlement, the determination of guilt must be inferential. There was evidence here from which the jury could find that any one, or all of the necessary standards were met as to Frederick County. The money was entrusted to Martel there and it was there he was under an obligation to account. It could be inferred that the intent to convert and the actual conversion took place on the afternoon of December 22 in Frederick County from, among other things, the fact that he was seen buying liquor in Frederick Monday afternoon, at a time when the evidence permitted the inference that he had unpaid financial...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Logan v. State
...by the rule to be made known to the accused at his initial appearance can itself be waived. See, e. g., Martel v. State, 221 Md. 294, 300-02, 157 A.2d 437, 441 (1960), cert. denied, 363 U.S. 849, 80 S.Ct. 1628, 4 L.Ed.2d 1732 (1960) (waiver of indictment); Garland v. Washington, 232 U.S. 64......
-
State v. Hutchinson
...to be given an accomplice's testimony, and it is very probable that he did so. (Id. at 14, 169 A.2d at 422-23.)); Martel v. State, 221 Md. 294, 301-02, 157 A.2d 437, cert. denied, 363 U.S. 849, 80 S.Ct. 1628, 4 L.Ed.2d 1732 (1960); Jackson v. State, 214 Md. 454, 460, 135 A.2d 638 (1957), ce......
-
Urciolo v. State
...by the defendant in his motion for judgment of acquittal, and citing Peddersen v. State, 223 Md. 329, 164 A.2d 539 (1960); Martel v. State, 221 Md. 294, 157 A.2d 437, cert. denied, 363 U.S. 849, 80 S.Ct. 1628, 4 L.Ed.2d 1732 (1960); Bowen v. State, 206 Md. 368, 111 A.2d 844 (1955); and Wald......
-
Ennis v. State
...the Supreme Court has denied certiorari. See Kain v. State, 222 Md. 511 , cert. den. 364 U.S. 874 [81 S.Ct. 118, 5 L.Ed.2d 96]; Martel v. State, 221 Md. 294 , cert. den. 363 U.S. 849 [80 S.Ct. 1628, 4 L.Ed.2d 1732]; Reddick v. State, 219 Md. 95 , cert. den. 360 U.S. 930 [79 S.Ct. 1448, 3 L.......