Wilson v. State
Decision Date | 13 May 1969 |
Docket Number | No. 375,375 |
Citation | 253 A.2d 439,7 Md.App. 41 |
Parties | Salan Lonnie Coy WILSON v. STATE of Maryland. |
Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Joseph E. Emerson, Baltimore, for appellant.
H. Edgar Lentz, Asst. Atty. Gen., with whom were Francis B. Burch, Atty. Gen., Charles E. Moylan, Jr., and Edward F. Seibert, State's Atty. and Asst. State's Atty. for Baltimore City, respectively, on brief, for appellee.
Before MURPHY, C. J., and ANDERSON, MORTON, ORTH and THOMPSON, JJ.
The only question presented on this appeal is whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction of the appellant, who was found guilty of being a rogue and vagabond at a court trial in the Criminal Court of Baltimore on 2 October 1968 and sentenced to one year consecutive to a sentence he was then serving. The question is to be resolved under Md.Rule 1086, by the provisions of which this Court will not set aside the judgment of the lower court on the evidence unless clearly erroneous, giving due regard to the opportunity of the lower court to judge the credibility of the witnesses. In the Memorandum on Motion for Reargument in Edwards v. State, 198 Md. 132, 81 A.2d 631, 83 A.2d 578, 26 A.L.R.2d 874, the Court of Appeals noted that it was asked by counsel how it could ever say that the trial court was clearly wrong. It said, at 159, 83 A.2d at 582:
See Williams v. State, 5 Md.App. 450, 452-460, 247 A.2d 731.
This is one of those rare cases and we find that the judgment of the lower court on the evidence was clearly erroneous.
The appellant and Samuel Stuart Simms were jointly indicated but tried separately. 1 The indictment contained one count, charging that on 20 June 1968 they '* * * were rogues and vagabonds in violation of Article 27, Section 490 of the annotated code of Maryland * * *.' 2
Marie Marsiglia testified that she resided at 2624 St. Paul Street, Normandy Apartments, 1-A. She went to get her mail about 11:30 A.M. on 20 June 1968 and 'noticed that there were two young boys or men in the hall'-hallway on the first floor. 'And I went back in again (into her apartment) and I came out a few seconds more and I noticed the boys going down the mailboxes at the names.' They were running their finger down looking at the names. They had some painting to do. I went to get the manager and Miss Crue (a neighbor and tenant in the apartment house) wouldn't allow them up the steps. * * * She held them off and wouldn't allow them up the steps. So they set in the chairs in the hall where they were seated. They stayed there for about five or ten minutes. With tha they left. With that the manager came up and saw them going down the steps, going out the door. They were really raising a rumpus because we had stopped them. And that's all.' She made a positive in-court identification of the appellant as one of the boys she saw in the hallway. When she first saw him he had a magazine in his hand but nothing else. On cross-examination she said they were dressed in street clothes and that Miss Crue stopped them from going up the stairs by spreading her arms 'out the side of the stairway.' They did not attempt to go by her. Mrs. Marsiglia had lived in the apartment house a year and a half and had never seen the boys before. She did not know whether or not anyone was home in apartment 4-B that day.
Lorraine Crue testified she had lived in the apartment house a little over a year on the first floor about two-thirds of the way down the hall, approximately 25 feet from the mailboxes which were located right inside the front door. She came out of her apartment and 'saw these two boys just fooling around the mailboxes and Mrs. Marsiglia was standing near my door. She said * * *.'
She identified the appellant as one of the boys. She recognized 'the Greek name' as a tenant in the apartment house. 'I know the people by sight and I know the names because the names are already on the mailboxes and on the doorbell.' She did not know whether or not the man whose name they gave was at home. After the boys sat down she went out of the building to a side entrance and got the janitor. When she and the janitor came back the boys were going out the door. 'They were just starting across 27th Street and St. Paul when we got there and saw them.' On cross-examination she described 'sprinting down the hall' as 'walking rapidly * * * just walking quickly.' The name they gave was 'Kapakas, or something like that * * * They didn't know how to pronounce it; didn't know how to spell it * * * a name like that is hard to pronounce anyway.' They insisted they were at the apartment house 'to see this party about a job * * * They insisted on going up to see him.' The transcript shows the following questions by the court and answers by the witness:
On further cross-examination by defense counsel the witness said that when she first saw the boys, they said they were going upstairs to do work. 'Then they insisted on going upstairs to do painting and we knew there wasn't any work like that up there.' After they sat down they said
Edward Dawson, the janitor, identified the appellant as one of the boys he saw going out the door. He saw a police officer coming down the street and told the officer what had happened. The officer was Earl Mathias and the apartment house was on his regular beat. He was cruising south on St. Paul Street in the 2700 block and He saw Mr. Dawson on the corner waving, talked to him, then went He identified the appellant as one of the boys. 'As I approached these two boys, they stepped back over the chain and sat on the chain. He explained this and related his further actions as follows:
When he went back to the station house he was informed that the boys were under arrest, each charged with being a rogue and vagabond. The brown paper bag was in the pocket of the appellant's companion, Simms, and 'the end of a screw driver was sticking out of it.' The appellant had nothing in his hands except a magazine. On cross-examination it was...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Carter v. State
...A.2d 476, 494; Fisher v. State, 5 Md.App. 155, 245 A.2d 624, 626; Williams v. State, 7 Md.App. 5, 252 A.2d 880, 885; and Wilson v. State, 7 Md.App. 41, 253 A.2d 439, 445. However, although this rule has been often repeated, the boundaries of its application have not been The rule concerning......
-
Appeal No. 504 September Term, 1974 from Circuit Court of Baltimore City Sitting as a Juvenile Court, In re
...as and when it is presented, case by case. . . . (I)t is to be expected that such cases will be rare . . ..' See Wilson v. State, 7 Md.App. 41, 53, 253 A.2d 439. This is one of those rare cases. We hold that the court below was clearly wrong in its judgment on the evidence. The judgment is ......
-
Downes v. State, 424
...See Hebb v. State, 10 Md.App. 145, 150, 268 A.2d 578; Johnson v. State, 10 Md.App. 652, 665-666, 272 A.2d 422. Compare Wilson v. State, 7 Md.App. 41, 253 A.2d 439 in which we found that the circumstances under which the accused was found upon the dwelling house were not sufficient to show a......
-
Jones v. State
...See Rice v. State, 9 Md.App. 552, 267 A.2d 261 (1970); Munger v. State, 7 Md.App. 710, 256 A.2d 888 (1969); Wilson v. State, 7 Md.App. 41, 253 A.2d 439 (1969), and Ball v. State, 7 Md.App. 219, 254 A.2d 367 (1969). The evidence was legally sufficient to sustain the Lastly, the appellant con......