Spies v. State
| Decision Date | 19 November 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 66,66 |
| Citation | 258 A.2d 758,8 Md.App. 160 |
| Parties | Ronald George SPIES v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
J. Earle Plumhoff, Towson, for appellant.
T. Joseph Touhey, Asst. Atty. Gen., with whom were Francis B. Burch, Atty. Gen., Baltimore; Samuel A. Green, Jr., and William J. Blondell, Jr., State's Atty. and Asst. State's Atty. for Baltimore County, respectively, Towson, for appellee.
Before MURPHY, C. J., and ANDERSON, MORTON, ORTH and THOMPSON, JJ.
Ronald George Spies, the appellant, was convicted in a court trial in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County of breaking into a dwelling house in the daytime with intent to steal. He was sentenced to serve a term of five years. He contends there was insufficient evidence to corroborate the testimony of an accomplice.
Lillie B. Rody testified that her home on Chanceford Road was broken into on March 7, 1968. The home is geographically located in the Woodlawn area. Among the items taken were; silverware, rings, portable television, and a clock radio. Entrance was gained by forcing the front doorknob in such a manner as to break the lock. William Larry Shade, the co-defendant and accomplice, testified that he had performed at least nine burglaries of private homes in the Baltimore City and Baltimore County area. He said his usual modus operandi for gaining entry was to force the doorknob of a door and break the lock. Shade testified further that he, at an unspecified date, was riding through the Woodlawn section looking for unoccupied residences to break into. He claimed that he was accompanied by two people: Spies and Barbara Sinsky, who subsequently married Spies prior to trial. Shade stated that the trio committed a burglary in the Woodlawn section but he could not remember the date of the burglary, the exact location of the burglary nor specifically what property was taken beyond a television set and a tape recorder. He stated that he did not know where Chanceford Road was; he did not know which house belonged to Mrs. Rody; and generally had no idea where he was, beyond knowing that he was in the Woodlawn section.
The law of Maryland is clear that an accused may not be convicted on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. Although only slight corroboration is necessary, the corroborative testimony must tend either: (1) to identify the defendant with the prepetrators of the crime or (2) to show the defendant's participation in the crime itself. See Bright v. State, 1 Md.App. 657, 232 A.2d 544, Boone v. State, 3 Md.App. 11, 237 A.2d 787.
While the testimony of the accomplice, Shade, clearly implicates Spies in the burglary of the Rody home, there is no corroboration of this fact. Mrs. Rody's testimony does not identify Spies with the perpetrators of the crime nor does it show his participation in the crime itself.
The State claims that three facts corrborate Shade's testimony. Those facts are: (1) the 'unique method of entry', (2) the items actually...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mills v. State
...indentifies the accused with the perpetrators of the crime or shows that the accused participated in the crime itself. Spies v. State, 8 Md.App. 160, 258 A.2d 758; Boone v. State, 3 Md.App. 11, 237 A.2d The evidence linking the appellant with the house at 2010 Brunt Street and the occupants......
-
Borza v. State
...or (2) to show the defendant's participation in the crime itself. Foxwell v. State, supra; (13 Md.App. 37, 281 A.2d 123) Spies v. State, 8 Md.App. 160, 258 A.2d 758. If with some degree of cogency it tends to establish either of these matters it would be sufficient, authorizing the trier of......
-
Early v. State
...the perpetrators of the crime, or (2) to show the defendant's participation in the crime itself. Foxwell v. State, supra; Spies v. State, 8 Md.App. 160, 258 A.2d 758. If with some degree of cogency it tends to establish either of these matters it would be sufficient, authorizing the trier o......
-
Irvin v. State
...218 (1973); Early v. State, 13 Md.App. 182, 282 A.2d 154 (1971); Foxwell v. State, 13 Md.App. 37, 281 A.2d 123 (1971); Spies v. State, 8 Md.App. 160, 258 A.2d 758 (1969); Boone v. State, 3 Md.App. 11, 237 A.2d 787 (1968), cert. denied 393 U.S. 872, 89 S.Ct. 161, 21 L.Ed.2d 141 (1968); Brigh......