Martin v. State, No. 4

• Court: Court of Appeals of Maryland
• Writing for the Court: Before SOBELOFF; HAMMOND
• Citation: 203 Md. 66,98 A.2d 8
• Decision Date: 01 October 1953
• Docket Number: No. 4
• Parties: MARTIN v. STATE. ,

Page 66

203 Md. 66 98 A.2d 8 MARTIN
v.
STATE. No. 4, Oct. Term, 1953. Court of Appeals of Maryland. July 2, 1953.

Page 68

[98 A.2d 9] William H. Murphy, Baltimore, for appellant.

Ambrose T. Hartman, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Edward D. E. Rollins, Atty. Gen., and Anselm Sodaro, State's Atty., on the brief), for appellee.

Before SOBELOFF, C. J., and DELAPLAINE, COLLINS, HENDERSON and HAMMOND, JJ.

HAMMOND, Judge.

The appellant, Raymond Martin was held for trial upon four indictments, three of which charged him with burglary, and the fourth with being a rogue and a vagabond, within the meaning of Article 27, Section 576 of the Code (1951 Ed.). The appellant was tried

Page 69

in the Criminal Court of Baltimore City by Judge Smith, without a jury. He plead not guilty. One of the burglary indictments was abandoned during the course of the trial. He was found guilty on each of the remaining indictments and sentence was withheld, pending a motion for a new trial. The motion for the new trial was granted on the two indictments for burglary and was denied on the indictment charging him with being a rogue and a vagabond. He was sentenced to serve not more than two years in the Maryland Reformatory for Males, and this appeal is from that judgment and sentence.

[98 A.2d 10] On December 21, 1952 at 11:05 P.M., the appellant was seen by a police officer in the rear of a factory owned by the Phoenix Manufacturing Company, which is located at 1201 Sharp Street, Baltimore. The appellant, on being questioned concerning his presence in the rear of the factory, answered that he 'was just walking through the alley', and that he now lived in that part of town, that he had been at a dance at a small club in Peach Alley, and had stopped to relieve himself. He was held for investigation. At the Station House he was searched, and was found to have in his possession a pair of pliers, three screw drivers, a wrench, and a drill, all of which were stuck down inside his jacket. The factory had been twice burglarized within five weeks. On one occasion, a dozen hunting trousers and several dozen men's and boys' shirts were taken. The other time some fifteen dozen men's and boys' shirts were taken.

Section 576 of Article 27 of the Code, under which appellant was convicted, in the part here applicable, reads as follows: 'If any person shall be apprehended having upon him any pick-lock, key, crow, jack, bit, or other implement, at places and under circumstances from which an intent may be presumed feloniously to break and enter into any dwelling-house, warehouse, storehouse, stable or outhouse, * * * every such person shall be deemed a rogue and vagabond, * * *.'

Page 70

The appellant makes two contentions--one, that the articles found in his possession at the Station House should not have been admitted in evidence because his arrest was illegal and therefore the evidence found as a result of that arrest is not admissible; two, that even with the implements found on him in evidence, the charge of which he was found guilty is not sustained by the evidence.

The question as to the admissibility of the evidence arose in this manner. Officer Cook was asked by the State's Attorney to give the time, date and circumstances of the arrest. The officer's testimony, with the objection of the appellant's counsel, the subsequent testimony, and the motion to strike, is shown by the record as follows:

'A. About 11:05 p.m., December the 21st, 1952, while on my way to work, I observed Raymond Martin, colored, age 17, in the rear of 1201 Sharp Street. I picked Raymond Martin up for investigation, and brought him to the station house, where I turned him over to Sergeant Lansdowne and Officer Hogan. And with Sergeant Lansdowne and Officer Hogan we went to 1607 Rutland Avenue, Raymond's home, and there we found two pair of thread clippers that were reported in a burglary in the company located in the building.

'Mr. Murphy: I object to that, Your Honor. I object to this mode of----

'The Court: Yes, reported--strike it out.

'Mr. Rogers: All right.

'Q. (By Mr. Rogers) Now, Officer, before you go into that, what, if anything, did you find in the possession of this boy at the time you made the arrest? A. When the man was searched at the station house we found three screw drivers, and a drill in Raymond's possession.

Page 71

'Q. Now, where did he have them? A. And a pair of pliers. Had them stuck down inside his jacket.

'Q. Now, I show you these tools. Can you identify them, Officer? Screw drivers, wrench, and a few other items. Can you identify these items? A. I can.

'Q. And what are they, Officer? A. Those are the three screw drivers, wrench, a pair of pliers, and a drill that were taken from Martin, on his person at the station house.

'Mr. Rogers: We offer all of these as State's Exhibit Number 1, Your Honor.

'Q. (By Mr. Rogers) When he got to the station house, did you question him, Officer? A. Yes, I did.

'Q. And at that time what did you say to him, and what did he say to you? A. We asked him what he was doing in the rear of 1201 Sharp Street, and [98 A.2d 11] he stated he was just taking a walk through the alley. He was taken short and stopped there for that reason. And when I asked him what he was doing in this part of town, he told me he was living over here now. After being taken to the station house and talking to him for a while, still admitted living at 1607 Rutland Avenue.

'Q. Now, at that time, did he say anything to you about a dance on that evening? A. There was a small club up in Peach Alley, and Raymond claims he was coming from there, a bunch of juveniles, that sort of club, were with him up there. He stated he was coming from there.

'Mr. Rogers: All right, witness with you.

'Mr. Murphy: If Your Honor pleases, I move to strike out all of the testimony of this officer, for the

Page 72

reason that it now appears that when the arrest was made there was no probable cause, no reason whatever, for having arrested this man. The officer testimony states.

'The Court: The motion is overruled.'

We will assume, without deciding that the arrest of the appellant was illegal, and that after being indicted as a rogue and vagabond, a misdemeanor, he could upon motion to quash, prior to trial as permitted by Rule 3, Criminal Rules of Practice and Procedure, or by a timely objection to the evidence when offered at the trial, have prevented the introduction into evidence of the implements found on him. We think, however, that the appellant waived this right by failing to object to the evidence at the time it was offered. The principle governing the time for objection, which has been stated and restated, is that the one against whom evidence is offered must object as soon as the applicability of the evidence is known or should reasonably have been known to him. Wigmore on Evidence, Third Edition, Section 18. In Dick v. State, 107 Md. 11, 68 A. 286, 287, 576, the defendant in a criminal case, at the close of the questioning of a witness, objected to testimony. Objection was overruled. The Court held that the evidence 'was given without any objection, and so went to the jury, and the objection as made came too late.'

In Klecka v. State, 149 Md. 128, 131 A. 29, it...