Tingler v. State, 140
| Decision Date | 06 June 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 140,140 |
| Parties | Donald Lee TINGLER and Harry Lee Wright v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Richard M. Hartman, Baltimore, Daniel E. Klein, Jr., Baltimore, and Harry Lee Wright, on the brief, for appellants.
Alan M. Wilner, Asst. Atty. Gen., Francis B. Burch, Atty. Gen., Alan M. Wilner, Asst. Atty. Gen., Charles E. Moyland, Jr., State's Atty. for Baltimore City, Howard Cardin, Asst. State's Atty., for Baltimore City, Baltimore, on the brief, for appellee.
Before ANDERSON, MORTON, ORTH and THOMPSON, JJ., and WILLIAM J. O'DONNELL, Special Judge.
Donald Lee Tingler and Harry Lee Wright, the appellants, complain of a conviction for larceny after trust by the Criminal Court of Baltimore, sitting without a jury, alleging (a) the evidence was insufficient to support their convictions and (b) that they were denied due process of law because a police officer was allowed to correct his testimony after the State had rested its case.
Around noon on February 8, 1966, Tingler and Wright went to the used car lot of Sandy Lane Motors, on Harford Road, in the City of Baltimore. When they showed an interest in purchasing a 1963 Ford automobile, the manager put license tags on it and gave them permission to drive it around the block to see if they liked it. When the car was not returned three or four hours later the manager notified the police.
Officer Norman Jordan, of the Anne Arundel County Police Department, stopped the car in Glen Burnie at about 5:30 A.M. the next morning for a routine check. He asked specifically about the used car plates, and Wright, the driver, informed him that he was an employee of the used car company. A check revealed that the car was missing and the appellants were held for the Baltimore Police. A set of Ohio license tags was found in the automobile; all of the car's hubcaps and the inspection sticker were missing. The door panel had been dented. No explanation for the damage or missing items was offered by the appellants and no explanation was given as to the Ohio license tags. Donald Lee Tingler and Dennis Tingler, a brother, were also in the automobile at the time it was recovered but Dennis was acquitted by the trial judge.
Wright testified that instead of driving around the block, he drove Tingler home and then took the car out on the beltway, ending up in Glen Burnie which was 15 to 20 miles from the used car lot. He stated that at or about 2:00 or 2:30 P.M. he ran into a snowbank on a side street and when he was unable to remove the car, he took a taxi to Baltimore. At or about 7:00 P.M. he decided to go back to Glen Burnie and get the car which was moved by a wrecker he had engaged. He returned to Baltimore about 8:30 P.M. and went by the used car lot; but finding it closed he drove on to Tingler's house. He...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hepple v. State
...Jones v. State, 2 Md.App. 356, 363, 234 A.2d 900 (1967); Boone v. State, 2 Md.App. 80, 99, 233 A.2d 476 (1967); Tingler v. State, 1 Md.App. 389, 392, 230 A.2d 375 (1967). Rebuttal The Court of Appeals has set out what constitutes rebuttal evidence. In Jones v. State, 132 Md. 142, 148-149, 1......
-
Bailey v. State
...10 Md.App. 643, 272 A.2d 49; Jones v. State, 2 Md.App. 356, 234 A.2d 625; Boone v. State, 2 Md.App. 80, 233 A.2d 476; Tingler v. State, 1 Md.App. 389, 230 A.2d 375. Moreover, what we have already said with respect to the jackets, in the constitutional context of the search and seizure and i......
-
Mills v. State
... ... See also Spillers v. State, 10 Md.App. 643, 272 A.2d 49; Jones v. State, 2 Md.App. 356, 234 A.2d 625; Tingler ... (Wright) v. State, 1 Md.App. 389, 230 A.2d 375 (trial judge's discretion to allow reopening of case) ... Appellant objected to ... ...
-
Bacheller v. State
...to reopen its case by presenting another witness is clearly within the discretion of the trial court. Tingler and Wright v. State, 1 Md.App. 389, 392, 230 A.2d 375 (1967). Concerning the apparent violation of the sequestration order, it is clear that even where such a violation exists, this......