Putinski v. State
Decision Date | 13 June 1960 |
Docket Number | No. 234,234 |
Citation | 223 Md. 1,161 A.2d 117,82 A.L.R.2d 859 |
Parties | , 82 A.L.R.2d 859 John P. PUTINSKI v. STATE of Maryland. |
Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Roger K. Garfink, Baltimore, for appellant.
John Martin Jones, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen. (C. Ferdinand Sybert, Atty. Gen., Saul A. Harris, State's Atty., Baltimore, for Baltimore City and John W. Sause, Jr., Asst. State's Atty., Baltimore, for Baltimore City, on the brief), for appellee.
Before BRUNE, C. J., and HENDERSON, HAMMOND, PRESCOTT and HORNEY, JJ.
Putinski, the appellant, took a portable television set, a suitcase, a pair of pants and two suits of clothes belonging to his roommates in a rooming house, without their knowledge or consent, and pawned them. He was convicted of larceny by Judge Allen, sitting without a jury, over his contention, which he presses here, that he did not intend to permanently deprive the owners of their property--that is to steal it--so an essential element of the crime of larceny is lacking.
Putinski left a note for his roommates saying he was sorry, that he would send the money and the pawn tickets to them and that he was going to Washington. He immediately pawned the television set and the clothing for about the maximum he could have gotten on them, the trial judge found. He used some of the money to pay the interest due the pawnbroker on pledges he had earlier made of his own property. He gave the pawnbroker a false address. He went to live at a small hotel. Putinski is a painter, who had been unemployed for some time. About ten days after the taking of the goods he got a job and five days later discovered that all the pawn tickets were missing from his room--those for his own property and those for the stolen property. He, in his words, 'walked in brazen' to the pawnbroker to 'put a stop' on the pawned articles so a finder of the pawn tickets could not redeem. The police had already 'put a stop' on the stolen articles; the pawnbroker called them and Putinski was arrested. He first told the officer he had 'borrowed' the things he took but when the policeman, having drawn his admission that it was without the knowledge or consent of the owners, said: 'that is, you just stole it,' Putinski replied: 'I guess that is true.' Nevertheless, his defense was, and is, that he always had an intent to return the articles he took and therefore did not steal them.
Ledvinka v. Home Insurance Co., 139 Md. 434, 440, 115 A. 596, 598, 19 A.L.R. 167.
It is generally held that the intent must be to permanently deprive the owner of his property. Clark & Marshall, Crimes, Sec. 12.04 (6th Ed.); Perkins, Criminal Law, p. 224; 2 Wharton's Criminal Law, Sec. 1096 (12th Ed.); 3 Underhill, Criminal Evidence, Sed. 591 (5th Ed.); 52 C.J.S. Larceny § 1; 32 Am.Jur. Larceny Sec. 2; Hochheimer, Crimes and Criminal Procedure, Sec. 370 (2d Ed.); Annotation 48 A.L.R.2d 8, 29; compare Ledvinka v. Home Insurance Co., supra.
When the accused has taken property to pawn and raise money, the question arises whether his intent was to permanently deprive the owner of it--that is to steal it--or whether the intent was to raise money on it for a time and then return it, for if the thing is taken to be used only temporarily, there may be an absence of intent to deprive the owner of his ownership. The intent of the taker is a question of fact to be decided by the trier of fact. The English cases and those in this country have worked out tests of the intent in such circumstances.
Clark and Marshall, op. cit., Sec. 12.04, p. 733.
Perkins, op. cit., page 226, says the law is this:
See also 2 Wharton's Criminal Law, Sec. 1140, p. 1457 (12th Ed.); 52 C.J.S. Larceny § 27b(3), p. 823; 32 Am.Jur. Larceny Sec. 37, p. 929; 52 L.R.A.,N.S., 1017; Ann.Cas.1916C, 71; compare Model Penal Code, Tentative Draft 4, Part II, Sec. 206.6(c), which gives less effect to the claimed intent to redeem and return than do the cases.
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Harris v. State
...1062 (1985); Brown v. State, 236 Md. 505, 204 A.2d 532 (1964); Fletcher v. State, 231 Md. 190, 189 A.2d 641 (1963); Putinski v. State, 223 Md. 1, 161 A.2d 117 (1960). A person convicted of theft where the value of the goods or services is under $300.00, may be imprisoned for up to 18 months......
-
Cardin v. State
...431, 174 A.2d 76 (1961), the Court of Appeals stated: The state of one's mind or scienter is a question of fact. Putinski v. State, supra [223 Md. 1, 161 A.2d 117 (1960) ]; Tufts v. Poore, 219 Md. 1, 147 A.2d 717. And being subjective in nature, proof of wrongful intent is seldom direct, bu......
-
von Lusch v. State
...intent is subjective, and it must therefore be inferred from the circumstances of the case if it is found at all.' See also Putinski v. State, 223 Md. 1, 161 A.2d 117. This Court has several times had occasion to point out that intent is usually determined by inference, rather than by direc......
-
State v. White
...consent of the owner, is an offence at common law"); see also Murray v. State, 214 Md. 383, 135 A.2d 314 (1957); Putinski v. State, 223 Md. 1, 3, 161 A.2d 117, 119 (1960) (larceny defined as the "fraudulent taking and carrying away of a thing without claim of right, with the intention of co......