Swann v. State

• Decision Date: 12 January 1949
• Docket Number: 50.
• Citation: 63 A.2d 324,192 Md. 9
• Parties: SWANN v. STATE.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

63 A.2d 324

192 Md. 9

SWANN v. STATE.

No. 50.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

January 12, 1949

Appeal from Circuit Court, Prince George's County; Charles C Marbury, Judge.

Maxwell Swann was convicted of breaking a storehouse with intent to steal and carry away goods and chattels of another of the value of $25 or more and he appeals.

Appeal dismissed.

Charles W. Main, of Baltimore (George T. Burroughs, of Upper Marlboro, on the brief), for appellant.

Joseph D. Buscher, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen. (Hall Hammond, Atty. Gen and A. Gwynn Bowie, State's Atty. for Prince George's County, of Upper Marlboro, on the brief), for appellee.

Before MARBURY, C.J., and DELAPLAINE, COLLINS, HENDERSON and MARKELL, JJ.

MARKELL Judge.

Appellant and Clarence Ross were found guilty by the court, sitting as a jury, of breaking the storehouse (a tavern) of Edwin A. Blandford with intent to steal, take and carry away certain goods and chattels of another of the value of $25 or more. Appellant was sentenced to ten years in the penitentiary. From this judgment he appeals.

Charles Joseph Hawkins and Paul Revere Hodge were indicted for receiving stolen goods and after appellant's conviction pleaded guilty and were given suspended sentences. Appellant says he was convicted on the uncorroborated testimony of Hawkins and Hodge, accomplices in his alleged crime. We may assume, without deciding, that Hawkins and Hodge may be regarded as accomplices. Luery v. State, 116 Md. 284, 295, 296, 81 A. 681, 685, Ann.Cas.1913D, 161.

This court has approved the view that a conviction on the uncorroborated evidence of accomplices ought not to stand. Lanasa v. State, 109 Md. 602, 613, 71 A. 1058. But in Maryland the jury are the judges of law, as well as of fact, including the legal questions of sufficiency of evidence to convict or to corroborate evidence of accomplices. The verdict of the jury on such questions is not reviewable on appeal. Under existing practice, the verdict of the court, sitting as a jury, is like the verdict of a jury in this respect (Mayerson v. State, 181 Md. 105 112, 28 A.2d 833; Wolf v. State, 143 Md. 489-504, 122 A. 641) and a court cannot be required to instruct the jury, even though this court has recommended that the trial courts adopt the practice of granting advisory instructions advising or cautioning jurors against conviction without corroboration. Luery v. State, 116 Md. 284, 293, 294, 81 A. 681, 685,...