Polansky v. State

Citation109 A.2d 52,205 Md. 362
Decision Date11 November 1954
Docket NumberNo. 7,7
PartiesHyman POLANSKY v. STATE of Maryland.
CourtCourt of Appeals of Maryland

Ellis Levin, Baltimore (Calman A. Levin, Baltimore, on the brief), for appellant.

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

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

COLLINS, Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment and sentence for receiving stolen goods.

The appellant, Hyman Polansky, the proprietor of a night club known as the Rail Inn in Baltimore City, was indicted on three counts together with William Edward Anderson, Julius Joseph Loverde, Howard William Owens, and Silvio Sigismondi. In the first count they were charged with the larceny of four cases of Old Forester whiskey and one case of Ryebrook whiskey; in the second count with each unlawfully receiving the same five cases: and in the third count with conspiring together to steal the same five cases. Loverde and Sigismondi pleaded guilty to the second count and were so found. Owens pleaded not guilty and was found guilty on the second count. Anderson pleaded not guilty and was so found. The appellant pleaded not guilty and was found guilty on the second count and alone appeals to this Court.

For the purposes of this case the facts follow. It was admitted by the appellant that the whiskey was the property of Churchill, Ltd. Officer Vernon Ranke testified that on November 18, 1953, while in the company of Officer McCarthy, he saw two automobiles parked directly across the street from the Rail Inn. The trunk of the first automobile, a 1953 Chevrolet, owned by Loverde, was open. He observed therein several cartons. The trunk of the second automobile, a Nash sedan, the property of Charles Broessell, parked immediately in front of the Chevrolet, was also open. Apparently, as the officers approached, the trunks of both automobiles were closed. Ranke then told William Anderson, who was standing at the rear of the Nash, to open its trunk. Inside he found a case of Old Forester whiskey. When questioned, Anderson said he knew nothing about the whiskey, that one Charles Broessell had given him the key to open the trunk of the Nash so the whiskey could be placed therein. Loverde was then asked by the officer to open the trunk of his automobile, which at first he hesitated to do. When he finally opened the trunk, Ranke observed therein three cases of Old Forester and one case of Ryebrook whiskey, all in fifths. When questioned as to the whiskey Loverde at first would say nothing. Charles Broessell, who had been in the Rail Inn, then came across the street and stated that upon the request of the appellant, Polansky, he had given the key to the trunk of his automobile to William Anderson and that he did not know anything about the whiskey.

Sergeant Joseph Judd testified that, as a result of a call from Officers Ranke and McCarthy, he met the officers and Anderson, Sigismondi, and Loverde. Loverde told him that the whiskey was stolen. Howard Owens, who was standing on the sidewalk at the rear of Loverde's automobile, denied any knowledge of the whiskey and denied knowing the other men. It was later discovered that he worked with Loverde and Sigismondi.

Charles Broessell testified that he was in the Rail Inn that night, that Polansky came up and spoke to him and told him he wanted to put something in his car and to give the keys to Andy, meaning William Anderson. After Anderson walked out of the tavern, the appellant, Polansky, said something to him about whiskey, but at the moment he did not think it was unusual that the appellant wanted to put the whiskey in his car. About a minute after Anderson walked out, someone came in the tavern and told him that the trunk of his car was open and the police were talking to Anderson. Broessell went out and told the officers that the cardboard carton did not belong to him.

Silvio Sigismondi, produced by the State, denied any knowledge of any arrangement for the sale of the whiskey. He said he did not know Polansky and had no dealings with him. On cross-examination he testified that he was asked by Loverde to deliver the whiskey.

Howard Owens, testifying in his own behalf, stated that he was a truck helper employed by Churchill, Ltd., that he went for the ride with Loverde and Sigismondi on the night in question, and had no knowledge of the whiskey.

Julius Joseph Loverde, produced by the State, testified that he 'had' some whiskey from Churchill, Ltd., that he picked it up and put it in his car to sell, and that he went to the Rail Inn to sell it to the owner, Hyman Polansky. He there made arrangements to sell the whiskey to Polansky and the terms of the sale were $40. Appellant told him to put the whiskey in Broessell's car. Appellant sent someone, apparently Anderson, with Loverde to aid in putting the whiskey there. Loverde testified that he was in the habit of delivering whiskey to Polansky. He further said that Sigismondi and Owens had picked up the whiskey and he was to sell it and the money was to be split between Sigismondi, Owens and himself.

Hyman Polansky, the appellant, testifying in his own behalf, stated that he was at his place of business about 10:30 on the evening in question, that someone came in and asked him whether he would be interested in buying two cases of whiskey, that he asked the price and when told the price was $40.00, he told the person that he did not want it. He said he had never seen this man before. He denied having any conversation with Broessell and said he had never seen Loverde before.

Appellant claims that the evidence was not sufficient to convict him of receiving stolen goods because there is no proof that he ever received the stolen goods. Appellant relies on...

To continue reading

Request your trial
27 cases
  • Boone v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • 24 Enero 1968
    ...or facts. Citing 1 Underhill, Criminal Evidence (5th Ed. 1956, § 185; Wigmore Evidence (3rd Ed. 1940) § 2059 b and c, and Polansky v. State, 205 Md. 362, 109 A.2d 52, it restated the rule as follows, 219 Md. p. 650, 150 A.2d p. or the appeals dismissed because the sufficiency of corroborati......
  • Borza v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • 21 Marzo 1975
    ...of the identification of the defendant with the commission of the crime, which is the other branch of the Polansky (Polansky v. State, 205 Md. 362, 109 A.2d 52) In an arson case the presence of the defendant in the vicinity of the fire, whether before or after its occurrence, is always rele......
  • Cross v. State
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • 4 Mayo 1978
    ...v. State, 219 Md. 36, 43-46, 148 A.2d 292, 297-98, cert. denied, 361 U.S. 849, 80 S.Ct. 105, 4 L.Ed.2d 87 (1959); Polansky v. State, 205 Md. 362, 366-67, 109 A.2d 52, 54 (1954); Boswell and Poe v. State, 5 Md.App. 571, 578-79, 249 A.2d 490, 496-97 (1968), cert. denied, 253 Md. 733 & 735 (19......
  • West v. State
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • 1 Septiembre 1987
    ...of one stolen item will justify an inference of possession of other items stolen at the same time. First, quoting Polansky v. State, 205 Md. 362, 366, 109 A.2d 52 (1954), we stated the general " 'Manual possession is not necessary to constitute receiving. However, one is guilty of so receiv......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT