Moore v. State, 147
| Decision Date | 04 April 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 147,147 |
| Citation | 199 Md. 676,87 A.2d 577 |
| Parties | MOORE v. STATE. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Ellis Levin, Baltimore (Maurice T. Siegel, Baltimore, on the brief), for appellant.
Kenneth C. Proctor, Asst. Atty. Gen., (Hall Hammond, Atty. Gen., Anselm Sodaro, State's Atty., and J. Harold Grady, Asst. State's Atty., of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellee.
Before MARBURY, C. J., and DELAPLAINE, COLLINS, HENDERSON and MARKELL, JJ.
Susie Moore was convicted of violation of the lottery laws by a jury in the Criminal Court of Baltimore and sentenced to not more than nine months in the Reformatory for Women and a fine of $1,000. The appeal raises two questions, whether lottery slips taken from a certain automobile under a search warrant were properly admitted in evidence, and whether the court erred in refusing to direct a verdict for the appellant under the second and third counts of the indictments upon motion made at the conclusion of the whole case.
The search warrant was duly issued on August 9, 1951 to Captain Emerson, based on observations over a prior period, directing him to search a Plymouth coupe bearing Maryland license tags numbered 74-481 titled in the name of Mary Larkins. The warrant was executed the same day. As the officers approached the car, a Negro was seen to enter it and place a brown paper bag on the seat. When the officers showed him the warrant he ran and escaped. A search of the car revealed thirty-five lottery slips for August 8, covering 356 numbers with an aggregate play of $23.53, and 512 lottery slips for August 9, covering 4,547 numbers with an aggregate play of $783.73. The registration card was found in the car, and inquiry of the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles established that the automobile was titled in the name of Mary Larkins.
The officers interviewed Mary Larkins, and she told them the car was not hers but belonged to Susie Moore. The officers then went to appellant's home, 3024 Auchentoroly Terrace. Shortly after they arrived, appellant drove up in an automobile bearing Maryland license tags numbered 74-483. Appellant admitted that the Plymouth coupe, license number 74-481 belonged to her. They told her they were looking for a Negro who had been operating the car that day. She told them his name was Carlos, but that she did not know his last name. She undertook to bring him to the Northwestern Police Station the next morning. She appeared there the next morning with Carlos Cooper, who admitted he had been driving the car, and subsequently pleaded guilty. Mary Larkins pleaded not guilty and was acquitted.
In the trial of the instant case the appellant took the stand and admitted that she had known Cooper's full name at the time of Captain Emerson's inquiry, had known him for years, and knew where he lived. He had worked for her. She admitted that she told Captain Emerson it was her car that Cooper had been driving on August 9, 1951. She said she brought it in 1948 and had it titled in Mary Larkins' name because she couldn't get insurance for it; the insurance company turned her down. She had never owned a car before and had never had an accident, or any judgment against her. Mary Larkins signed the applications for license tags and twice signed applications for loans on the car, including a $500 loan in 1950, which were duly paid off by the appellant. The appellant paid for the 1951 license tags and the insurance premiums. She testified, however, that in July, 1951, she sold the car to Carlos Cooper for $600.00, because 'she needed the money'. Cooper paid her $50.00 down. She had no receipt for the payment; she did not change the insurance; there was no written agreement, just an understanding that Cooper would pay her $15 or $20 a month. She had not received any payments except the $50. Cooper was not produced to substantiate these statements. She did not 'think about' getting another loan on the car or selling it to a dealer. She didn't know what the car was worth on the second-hand market. The automobile bearing license number 74-483 belonged to her husband. She denied any knowledge of the purpose for which Cooper had been using the car, or any familiarity with lottery operations.
The objection to the testimony of Captain Emerson as to what he found in the car is without merit. It was on the ground of 'relevancy'....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Boone v. State
...State, 201 Md. 73, 77, 92 A.2d 759, 761, that 'knowledge may be inferred from circumstances, even where there is positive denial. Moore v. State, 199 Md. 676, 87 A.2d 577; Shelton v. State, 198 Md. 405, 413, 84 A.2d 76, 80. As we said in Hayette v. State, 199 Md. 140, 145, 85 A.2d 790, 792,......
-
Silbert v. State
...v. State, 244 Md. 609, 224 A.2d 677; Warren v. State, 231 Md. 240, 189 A.2d 641; Martini v. State, 200 Md. 609, 92 A.2d 456; Moore v. State, 199 Md. 676, 87 A.2d 577; Purviance v. State, 185 Md. 189, 44 A.2d 474. While a 'ticket' is normally considered to be a written document of some kind,......
-
Robinson v. State
...and cases remanded for new trials; the costs of this appeal to be paid by the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore. 1 Cf. Moore v. State, 199 Md. 676, 87 A.2d 577, where a conviction on a charge of permitting an automobile to be used for the sale of lottery tickets was upheld. Cf. also Curle......
-
Shockley v. State
...201 Md. 73, 77, 92 A.2d 759, 761, that 'knowledge may be inferred from circumstances, even where there is positive denial. Moore v. State, 199 Md. 676, 87 A.2d 577; Shelton v. State, 198 Md. 405, 413, 84 A.2d 76, 80. As we said in Hayette v. State, 199 Md. 140, 145, 85 A.2d 790, 792, 'on qu......