Peachie v. State

• Decision Date: 13 November 1953
• Docket Number: No. 24,24
• Parties: PEACHIE v. STATE.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

Page 239

203 Md. 239

100 A.2d 1

PEACHIE v. STATE.

No. 24.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Nov. 13, 1953.

R. Palmer Ingram and Ernest L. Perkins, Baltimore (Malcolm J. Coan, Baltimore, on the brief), for appellant.

Francis D. Murnaghan, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen. (Edw. D. E. Rollins, Atty. Gen., and Anselm Sodaro, State's Atty., Baltimore on the brief), for appellee.

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

HENDERSON, Judge.

This appeal is from a judgment and sentence of ten years upon a conviction on an indictment charging, in nine counts, unlawful possession of a narcotic drug, unlawful control of a narcotic drug, and unlawful possession of implements adapted for the use of habit forming drugs by hypodermic injection for the purpose of administering habit forming drugs. Counts 4 through 9 repeated the charges contained in the first three counts, with additional charges of two prior convictions for narcotic drug law violations. The case was tried by the court without a jury and the sole question raised is whether the general verdict of guilty was sustained by the evidence.

Officer Vought, produced by the State, testified that at about 3 A.M. on the morning of September 5, 1952, he went to 932 Madison Avenue with two other officers. The lock of the door leading to the apartment on the first floor had been removed and covered with a piece of cardboard. By moving the cardboard aside they were able, in turn, to view the interior of the room. They saw three persons inside, seated around a table on which was a glass of water containing tablets, three hypodermic syringes and needles, and a 'smoked bottomed' teaspoon. The witness testified that he saw Peachie with one of the syringes in his hand but did not see him use it. After watching for about twenty minutes the officers forced the door. The witness saw Peachie throw against the wall a hypodermic needle which he had in his hand, and a handkerchief which had on it several splotches of blood. The blood marks were very fresh, still wet. Peachie had fresh needle marks on his arm. The glass contained four capsules of heroin. Medical testimony established the fact that the capsules, the glass, the teaspoon and two of the syringes contained traces of opium derivatives.

Peachie's testimony was to the effect that he went to the apartment with Brinn, the owner, about 2 A.M. to help Brinn move into a hotel. Brinn dumped the articles on the table and went to get a box. Peachie denied that any of the articles were his, or that the handkerchief was his. He denied using the syringe, or taking narcotics. In explanation of the scars on his arm, he said he took injections prescribed by his physician because he had active tuberculosis. He admitted that he had had two previous convictions for violations of the narcotic drug law.

The appellant concedes that the trial court could properly disbelieve and disregard the appellant's story, and accept the testimony produced by the State. He challenges the legal sufficiency of the State's evidence under the rules laid down in Edwards v. State, Md., 83 A.2d 578, 581, and Estep v. State, Md., 86 A.2d 470, 471. He contends that there is no evidence to establish that Peachie had possession or control of the drug, or of an instrument adapted to the use of the drug for the purpose of administering it. Since it was uncontradicted that Peachie was not the owner of the...