Szewczyk v. State
| Decision Date | 09 September 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 445,445 |
| Citation | 256 A.2d 713,7 Md.App. 597 |
| Parties | Raymond Walter SZEWCZYK v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Robert P. Conrad, Jr., with whom was John W. Pfeifer, on the brief, of McDonald, Pfeifer, Jones & Conrad, Baltimore, for appellant.
Thomas M. Downs, Asst. Atty. Gen., with whom were Francis B. Burch, Atty. Gen., Baltimore, Julian B. Stevens, Jr., and Raymond G. Thieme, Jr., State's Atty. and Asst. State's Atty. for Anne Arundel County, respectively, Annapolis, on the brief, for appellee.
Before MURPHY, C. J., and ANDERSON, MORTON, ORTH and THOMPSON, JJ.
Appellant was convicted of larceny in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County in a non-jury trial and sentenced to two years under the jurisdiction of the Department of Correction. The sentence was suspended and the appellant placed on probation.
He initially contends that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the corporation named in the indictment-Food Fair, Incorporated, trading as Pantry Pride Supermarket-had a corporate existence or or that it owned the allegedly stolen goods. We deem this contention to be without merit. While it is true that corporate existence must be proven when ownership of the stolen goods is alleged to be in a corporation, Sippio v. State, 227 Md. 449, 177 A.2d 261; Paesch v. State, 2 Md.App. 746, 237 A.2d 83, the proof need not be formal. Stackhouse v. State, 1 Md.App. 399, 404, 230 A.2d 358. In this case, the store manager, Steven Wojcik, testified that he was employed by 'Food Fair, Incorporated, operating as Pantry Pride'; that he knew Food Fair to be a corporation; and that he was paid by checks upon which the name Food Fair Stores, Incorporated, appeared. This testifmony was sufficient to establish corporate existence. Stackhouse v. State, supra. As to proof that the allegedly stolen goods-120 cartons of cigarettes-were owned by the corporation, the store manager testified that from the numbers on the boxes he knew that the cigarettes in question were owned by 'Food Fair Stores, Incorporated.' This testimony was sufficient to establish ownership in the corporation. Anthony v. State, 3 Md.App. 129, 135, 238 A.2d 130.
Appellant also contends that there was insufficient evidence to prove that he had the requisite guilty intent to steal the property of another since he acted under the reasonable belief that the cigarettes had been abandoned.
Officer Gerald Tippett testified that on February 10, 1968, he was assigned to continue a surveillance initiated earlier that day by a fellow officer of a large trash container, known as a dumpster, located in the rear of a Pantry Pride food store. After a short period of time, he observed a man, whom he identified in court as the appellant, park his car next to the dumpster, alight therefrom, and peer through a side door of the dumpster. Appellant then transferred three boxes, one by one, from the dumpster to the car. The removal of the boxes took about forty-five seconds. Officer Tippett, who was in plain clothes and an unmarked police car, further testified that after the appellant removed the boxes, 'he looked at me, kind of stared at me * * *', got into his car and drove off. The officer followed the appellant a short distance and then arrested him.
Photographs taken of the three boxes found in the appellant's car and admitted into evidence showed a large cardboard container with Pall Mall written on it containing cartons of Pall Mall cigarettes, with the top of the container slightly soiled; another box with Pall Mall written thereon contained cartons of Pall Mall and Salem cigarettes; and the third container had Viceroy written on its side and contained cartons of various brands. The photographs strikingly demonstrated that the cartons of cigarettes were not simply thrown into the boxes haphazardly as trash is normally stowed. They showed that the cartons were deliberately arranged in the boxes in an orderly, neat and tidy manner. Earlier State testimony disclosed that these boxes were put in the dumpster without permission by a Pantry Pride employee.
A rebuttal witness for the State, Corporal Walter T. Gray of the Anne Arundel County Police Department, testified that on the day in question he received a call for assistance from Officer Tippett who was apprehending the appellant. Upon arrival, he noticed that a cover, apparently used by the appellant as a seat cover when his dog was in the car, 'was pulled back over these cartons on the floor * * *.'
Considering...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pahanish v. Western Trails, Inc.
...398 A.2d 460 cert. denied, 285 Md. 728 (1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 941, 100 S.Ct. 295, 62 L.Ed.2d 308 (1979); Szewczyk v. State, 7 Md.App. 597, 602, 256 A.2d 713 (1969); Grice v. State, 2 Md.App. 482, 486, 235 A.2d 316 (1967). The function of this Court in reviewing a non-jury case is no......
-
von Lusch v. State
...609, 261 A.2d 503, we said: 'In short, the finding of the requisite intent was a matter for the trier of fact. See Szewczyk v. State, 7 Md.App. 597, 601, 256 A.2d 713. . . ." In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence in a jury trial, we do not inquire into and measure the weight of the e......
-
Williams v. State
...that conclusion. The credibility of the witnesses is always a question for the trier of facts to determine. Szewczyk v. State, 7 Md.App. 597, 602, 256 A.2d 713 (1969); Watson v. State, 6 Md.App. 134, 139, 250 A.2d 311 Judgment affirmed. 1 'Rule 743. Jurors-Number.A jury shall consist of twe......
-
Waller v. State, 275
...A.2d 503, at page 509, we said: 'In short, the finding of the requisite intent was a matter for the trier of fact. See Szewczyk v. State, 7 Md.App. 597, 601, 256 A.2d 713. Intent to steal is subjective; it need not be directly and objectively demonstrated but may be inferred from a totality......