Palmer v. State, No. 458
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
| Writing for the Court | Argued before MURPHY; ANDERSON |
| Citation | 10 Md.App. 152,268 A.2d 582 |
| Decision Date | 12 August 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 458 |
| Parties | John Ernest PALMER v. STATE of Maryland. |
Page 152
v.
STATE of Maryland.
Page 153
[268 A.2d 583] Dean A. Shure, Silver Spring, for appellant.
Gilbert Rosenthal, Asst. Atty. Gen., with whom were Francis B. Burch, Atty. Gen., William A. Linthicum, State's Atty., and William A. Cane, Asst. State's Atty., for appellee.
Argued before MURPHY, C. J., and ANDERSON, MORTON, ORTH and THOMPSON, JJ.
ANDERSON, Judge.
Appellant, John Ernest Palmer, was convicted in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County by a jury, Judge John P. Moore presiding, of storehousebreaking with intent to commit a felony, namely, steal goods and chattels over the value of one hundred dollars (first count) and grand larceny (third count). He was sentenced to three years on the first count and three years on the third count; the sentences to run consecutively for a total of six years.
The testimony reveals that on February 16, 1968, at approximately 7:30 a. m., Corporal Paul Smith of the Montgomery County Police responded to a reported breaking and entering at Victory Van Leasing Co., 926 Derwood Circle, Rockville, Maryland. He was met by the manager, Mr. Tolson, found that entry had been gained by breaking the glass in a rear door, and further found that the office had been ransacked. Corporal Smith testified that at 2:40 a. m. on the morning of February 16th he had been patrolling in the area and had noticed a burglar alarm ringing at Loeb Hardware, next door to Victory Van. Corporal Smith checked the rear of the Victory Van warehouse, noticed a broken window but was unable
Page 154
to make a closer examination of the window due to the height of the fence separating Loeb and Victory Van. From this information Smith concluded that the breaking at Victory Van had occurred at approximately 2:40 on the morning of February 16th.Donald Tolson, the manager of the Victory Van warehouse, testified that upon [268 A.2d 584] his arrival at work on February 16th, the office was in a state of disarray with the contents of desk drawers and file cabinets piled in heaps on the floor. He testified that $108.44 was missing from the petty cash box. Tolson further testified that appellant, John Palmer, had been employed by Victory Van from July 29, 1966 to February 1, 1968 and that Palmer did not have permission to enter the warehouse at any time subsequent to February 1, 1968.
Detective Sergeant O. W. Sweat testified that on the morning of February 16, 1968 he made an investigation of the Victory Van warehouse and gathered several pieces of paper from the floor which appeared to bear the impression of a foot. These footprints were subsequently sent to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Detective Sweat testified that on February 17, 1968 he obtained a search warrant for the appellant's apartment. The search warrant was introduced into evidence over defense objection. Detective Sweat further testified that a search of the appellant's apartment produced a pair of Wellington type boots which were introduced into evidence as State's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hutt v. State, No. 964
...in evidence to identify the accused as the guilty person." Graham v. State, 239 Md. 521, 529, 212 A.2d 287 (1965); Palmer v. State, 10 Md.App. 152, 268 A.2d 582 (1970). As to the first prong of appellant's argument, the general rule seems to be that expert testimony is not necessary in orde......
-
Johnson v. State, No. 444
...at a time other than that of the crime. Such additional evidence need not be independent of the latent fingerprint. Palmer v. State, 10 Md.App. 152, 156, 268 A.2d 582 (1970). This evidence was supplied by Mr. Stevenson's testimony that he found the coin container, emptied of its contents, i......
-
State v. Austin, No. 80-KA-2403
...State v. Krajewski, 303 Minn. 37, 226 N.W.2d 293 (1975); State v. Black, 163 Mont. 302, 516 P.2d 1163 (1973); Palmer v. State, 10 Md.App. 152, 268 A.2d 582 (1970); State v. Hardinson, 81 N.M. 430, 467 P.2d 1002 (1970); Flowers v. State, 415 S.W.2d 178 (Tex.Crim.1967); State v. McGlathery, 4......
-
Hebb v. State, No. 421
...storehousebreaking. In order to sustain each charge two common elements must be proved, namely, the presence of the defendant Hebb [268 A.2d 582] in and upon the enclosed yard of the storehouse and the intent to steal goods and chattels therein. Under the third count an attempted breaking m......
-
Hutt v. State, No. 964
...in evidence to identify the accused as the guilty person." Graham v. State, 239 Md. 521, 529, 212 A.2d 287 (1965); Palmer v. State, 10 Md.App. 152, 268 A.2d 582 (1970). As to the first prong of appellant's argument, the general rule seems to be that expert testimony is not necessary in orde......
-
Johnson v. State, No. 444
...at a time other than that of the crime. Such additional evidence need not be independent of the latent fingerprint. Palmer v. State, 10 Md.App. 152, 156, 268 A.2d 582 (1970). This evidence was supplied by Mr. Stevenson's testimony that he found the coin container, emptied of its contents, i......
-
State v. Austin, No. 80-KA-2403
...State v. Krajewski, 303 Minn. 37, 226 N.W.2d 293 (1975); State v. Black, 163 Mont. 302, 516 P.2d 1163 (1973); Palmer v. State, 10 Md.App. 152, 268 A.2d 582 (1970); State v. Hardinson, 81 N.M. 430, 467 P.2d 1002 (1970); Flowers v. State, 415 S.W.2d 178 (Tex.Crim.1967); State v. McGlathery, 4......
-
Hebb v. State, No. 421
...storehousebreaking. In order to sustain each charge two common elements must be proved, namely, the presence of the defendant Hebb [268 A.2d 582] in and upon the enclosed yard of the storehouse and the intent to steal goods and chattels therein. Under the third count an attempted breaking m......