Matthews v. State, 172
| Decision Date | 16 February 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 172,172 |
| Citation | 261 A.2d 804,8 Md.App. 712 |
| Parties | Jack Dillard MATTHEWS v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
J. Seymour Sureff, Baltimore, for appellant.
James L. Bundy, Asst. Atty. Gen., with whom were Francis B. Burch, Atty. Gen., Charles E. Moylan, Jr., State's Atty., and Robert C. Stewart, Asst. State's Atty., for Baltimore City respectively, on brief, for appellee.
Before MURPHY, C. J., and ANDERSON, MORTON, ORTH and THOMPSON, JJ.
Jack Dillard Matthews, the appellant, was indicted by the grand jury of Baltimore City on four counts: (1) burglary; (2) rogue and vagabond; (3) grand larceny; and (4) receiving stolen goods of the value of $100. The case was tried before Judge Shirley B. Jones without a jury in the Criminal Court of Baltimore. The trial court granted Matthews' motion for a directed verdict at the conclusion of the State's case with respect to the first, third and fourth counts of the indictment apparently because the State had failed to prove value and because the State had failed to prove the vacant apartment was a dwelling. See Arnold v. State, 7 Md.App. 1, 252 A.2d 878. He was, however, convicted of being a rogue and vagabond under the second count and sentenced to a term of three years.
Matthews contends: (1) since he committed a completed crime he cannot be convicted of being a rogue and vagabond under Crossland v. State, 252 Md. 70, 249 A.2d 153 and (2) in the alternative that the evidence was insufficient to show an intent to steal.
Scott E. Smith, the elevator operator at the apartment house at 101 East Mount Royal Avenue at 7:30 or 7:35 P.M. on October 3, 1968, heard noises from the areaway leading to the basement. Investigating the noises, he found the appellant Matthews with a portable television followed by Karen Miche, a co-defendant, on the stairway. In response to Smith's inquiry, Karen Miche said she was taking her television set. Smith summoned Erica Taber, the resident manager.
Taber, upon being called by Smith, went to the basement of the building to investigate. She found Karen Miche standing alone with an RCA portable television at her feet. The television was similar, if not identical, to the televisions furnished with the apartments. Taber said Karen Miche responded to her questions by saying that it was her television, that she had purchased it from the former occupant of apartment No. 472, that she had entered the apartment by means of a key and that she had a receipt for the television, which she offered to show, but did not produce. Mrs. Taber knew that Karen Miche did know and visit the former tenant of apartment No. 472, but she testified the tenant had no authority to sell the television. Mrs. Taber called the police, and then went to apartment No. 472 where she discovered the apartment lock had been broken; this lock had been replaced one week earlier and had been intact the previous day. Mrs. Taber observed scratch marks on the apartment door; inside the apartment she discovered the television set from that apartment was missing. Upon further inspection of the basement, Mrs. Taber found that a basement window, which could only be opened from the inside, had been opened. The door to the outside, which was kept locked, had been unlocked. There were no apartments in the basement, only locked storage areas.
Mrs. Taber observed Raymond Miche (another co-defendant and husband of Karen Miche) in the hallway to the first floor lobby as he appeared to come from one of the basement exits. Miche joined his wife in the lobby, she having come upstairs. Mrs. Taber saw the appellant for the first time standing with the Miches in the first floor lobby, but she did not know from where he had come. All three defendants left together and walked south toward St. Paul Street before the police arrived.
Officer James Howell of the Baltimore Police, responding to Mrs. Taber's call, arrested the appellant and the Miches on St. Paul Street. He examined the apartment door to No. 472 and observed the markings.
Appellant Matthews, testifying in his own defense, said he and the Miches stopped ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hall v. State, 339
...A.2d 379 (not applicable where a storehouse breaking had been completed, but the follow-up larceny had not yet been consummated); Matthews v. State, supra, at 8 Md.App. 715, 261 A.2d 804 (not applicable where a larceny had begun, but where the asportation was interrupted before it reached a......
-
Downes v. State, 424
...the conviction of being a rogue and vagabond where the storehouse breaking was completed, but the larceny was not. In Matthews v. State, 8 Md.App. 712, 715, 261 A.2d 804 we held, under the circumstances there existent, that for Crossland to apply the larceny must be at a practical as well a......
-
Jett v. State, 436
...Jett stole no goods and the Crossland holding is not apposite. Knight v. State, 7 Md.App. 282, 286, 254 A.2d 379. See Matthews v. State, 8 Md.App. 712, 261 A.2d 804. Jett next questions the proof of an intent on his part to steal any goods. He offered no testimony so the evidence offered by......
-
Holtman v. State, 524
...that when any part of the substantive crime remains incomplete, from the practical as well as the legal standpoint (Matthews v. State, 8 Md.App. 712, 715, 261 A.2d 804) the intent to complete it which may be inferred from the circumstances is sufficient to support a conviction under the rog......