Wersten v. State, 211
| Decision Date | 28 March 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 211,211 |
| Citation | 228 Md. 226,179 A.2d 364 |
| Parties | Donald J. WERSTEN v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Norman N. Yankellow, Baltimore (Joseph Rosenthal, Baltimore, on the brief), for appellant.
Robert F. Sweeney, Asst. Atty. Gen., Baltimore (Thomas B. Finan, Atty. Gen., Saul A. Harris, State's Atty., and John P. Rogers, Asst. State's Atty., Baltimore, on the brief), for appellee.
Before BRUNE, C. J., and HENDERSON, HAMMOND, PRESCOTT and MARBURY, JJ.
Donald J. Wersten was convicted, in the Criminal Court of Baltimore, of breaking and entering with intent to commit grand larceny and committing grand larceny. He was sentenced to twelve years' confinement, and has appealed.
Appellant's initial assignment of error is a claim that the State failed to prove ownership of the property broken into, and that stolen, as laid in the indictment. Ownership of both was alleged to be in one Chris Neumeister in the indictment. Proof of ownership in the testimony was indeed scant and meager. The witness Adam Kimmel was asked it he were connected with the 'Eichenkranz Society.' He replied he was 'treasurer of the corporation.' He was then asked if he were familiar with 'the man by the name of Mr. Chris Neumeister.' He replied that he was. When asked if Neumeister were connected with the Eichenkranz Society, he said: 'He is our manager.' Kimmel then went on to state that he left 'these premises' (presumably the premises broken into) about 1:30 a. m. on the morning before the burglary and he thought 'it' was closed shortly thereafter. When he returned two days later, the safe, containing around $1,000 and some papers, was missing 'from the Eichenkranz Society.' He thought the safe was removed through 'the south entrance to our restaurant.' He identified some papers that had been in the safe as belonging to 'the Eichenkranz Society.' This is all the evidence of ownership contained in the record extract.
We have stated that an allegation of the ownership of the property alleged to have been stolen is a necessary requisite in a larceny indictment (and the same applies to the property alleged to have been broken into in a count that charges statutory burglary); and proof of ownership as laid in the indictment is an essential factor to justify a conviction. Richardson v. State, 221 Md. 85, 156 A.2d 436; State v. King, 95 Md 125, 51 A. 1102; Sippio v. State, 227 Md. 449, 177 A.2d 261. We have recognized, of course, that in a prosecution for larceny, it is generally held that an allegation of the ownership of stolen goods is supported by proof of any legal interest or special property in the goods. Richardson v. State, supra, and authorities cited therein. As we have pointed out above, little effort was made by the State to develop (or by the trial judge to require proof of) the actual ownership of the property involved, and whether Neumeister had a sufficient interest or special property therein to permit ownership to have been laid in him. We have expressed before our realization of the pressures and problems of the criminal courts of this State, especially those in which the volume of business is large; but it must be remembered that anyone accused of crime, whether he be guilty or not guilty, must not be convicted unless all the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Warfield v. State
...Ennis v. State, 306 Md. 579, 583-587, 510 A.2d 573 (1986); Tull v. State, 230 Md. 152, 155-156, 186 A.2d 205 (1962); Wersten v. State, 228 Md. 226, 229, 179 A.2d 364 (1962); Woodell v. State, 223 Md. 89, 93, 162 A.2d 468 (1960). The reason the denial of the motion enables the appellate cour......
-
Ennis v. State
...to make the motion. See also Giles v. State, 229 Md. 370, 382 [183 A.2d 359] et seq." Id. at 155, 186 A.2d at 207. Wersten v. State, 228 Md. 226, 179 A.2d 364 (1962), aff'd on other grounds, 232 Md. 164, 192 A.2d 286 (1963) involved an appeal from a judgment convicting the defendant of brea......
-
Angulo–gil v. State , 1204
...336 Md. 475, 479, 649 A.2d 336 (1994). In a theft case, proof of ownership is an essential element of the offense. Wersten v. State, 228 Md. 226, 228–29, 179 A.2d 364 (1962). Under the consolidated theft statute, an owner “means a person, other than the offender, who has an interest in or p......
-
Mosley v. State
...sufficiency of the evidence. The issue-perhaps the most important one in the case—is regarded as waived, unpreserved. Wersten v. State, 228 Md. 226, 179 A.2d 364 (1962). We have also held that, even if such a motion is made, the failure of the defendant to particularize his/her complaint—to......