Yopps v. State, 239

CourtCourt of Appeals of Maryland
Citation198 A.2d 264,234 Md. 216
Docket NumberNo. 239,239
PartiesArnold YOPPS v. STATE of Maryland.
Decision Date18 March 1964

Page 216

234 Md. 216
198 A.2d 264
Arnold YOPPS
STATE of Maryland.
No. 239.
Court of Appeals of Maryland.
March 18, 1964.

Page 217

Morris Lee Kaplan, Baltimore, for appellant.

Russell R. Reno, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen. (Thomas B. Finan, Atty. Gen., William J. O'Donnell and Charles E. Moylan, Jr., State's Atty., and Deputy State's Atty., respectively, for Baltimore City, on the brief) all of Baltimore, for appellee.



The appellant was tried and convicted of burglary in 1961. On appeal from that conviction we reversed, Yopps v. State, 228 Md. 204, 178 A.2d 879, for the sole reason that defense counsel was not given an opportunity to argue before the verdict was announced. A new trial was held before Judge Sodaro

Page 218

and a jury on February 20, 1963 and the defendant-appellant was again convicted of breaking a dwelling house with intent to steal, in violation of Code (1957), Article 27, Section 32, and sentenced [198 A.2d 265] to ten years in the Maryland Penitentiary.

At approximately 4:45 p. m., Sunday, February 12, 1961 Mr. John O'Grady and his family departed from their securely locked home at 2237 Lake Avenue in Baltimore City to visit Mrs. O'Grady's parents. When the O'Gradys returned about 7:00 p. m. that evening it was noticed that the front door had been forced, and upon entering, the O'Gradys found that the house had been ransacked. Household items, including silverware, candlesticks, a camera and numerous items of jewelry, of a total value of about $1200 were missing. Mr. O'Grady also found that the back door of the house was unlocked, and he discovered fresh footprints in the snow in the backyard leading from the house to an alley beyond. Mr. O'Grady's testimony also adduced that all of the missing items could have been carried by one man, and that he had a sign reading 'John F. O'Grady, Attorney-at-Law' affixed to the right of the front door of his house.

The State produced as a witness Mrs. Thelma Frisbie, who lived across the street from the O'Gradys. She testified that at approximately 5:30 p. m. on the afternoon in question the appellant came to her door and asked her if she knew where a 'Mr. Pizza' lived on Lake Avenue. Having lived there for some thirty-five years, Mrs. Frisbie advised Yopps that there was nobody by the name of Pizza living on that street. Mrs. Frisbie testified further that because the appellant had acted very nervously and excitedly she continued to observe him. She saw him go to the house next door and to the home of Dr. Rider across the street and one house removed from the O'Grady house. She also observed Yopps standing at the front door of the O'Grady house for two or three minutes with the storm door open. She saw him walking around the block at a hurried pace and then driving down the street in a car which she had previously noticed parked on Lake Avenue some distance away. Yopps stopped the car in front of her house, he and another man got out, crossed the street and they both went up the front steps of the O'Grady house.

Page 219

The next door neighbor of the O'Gradys, a Mrs. Bessie Faraclas, testified that between 5:15 and 5:40 p. m. on February 12 she left her house by the front door, and just as she stepped onto her porch she saw the appellant standing at the front door of the O'Gradys. At that moment he tipped his hat and she heard him say, 'Good-bye Mrs. O'Grady.' She further testified that Yopps went down the sidewalk toward a car, putting his hands in his pockets as if searching for a key.

Dr. Rider was called to testify...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 cases
  • Wagner v. State, 2129
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • 4 Septiembre 2013
    ...mere status or acquaintance is insufficient to establish cause for disqualification of a prospective juror.”); Yopps v. State, 234 Md. 216, 221, 198 A.2d 264,cert. denied,379 U.S. 922, 85 S.Ct. 279, 13 L.Ed.2d 336 (1964) (court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to ask whether any jur......
  • Davis v. State, 954
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • 1 Septiembre 1991
    ...in Similar Crimes-- A favorite voir dire question is whether a prospective juror has been a victim of a similar crime. In Yopps v. State, 234 Md. 216, 198 A.2d 264 (1964), a defendant on trial for burglary sought to inquire as to whether any members of the jury panel or members of their fam......
  • Perry v. State, 119
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • 1 Septiembre 1995
    ...because of the experience of a member of the prospective juror's family or on the part of a close personal friend. See Yopps v. State, 234 Md. 216, 221, 198 A.2d 264, 267, cert. denied, 379 U.S. 922, 85 S.Ct. 279, 13 L.Ed.2d 336 (1964) (holding in prosecution for daytime housebreaking, wher......
  • von Lusch v. State, 213
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • 15 Abril 1976
    ...from facts proved which reasonably indicate under all the circumstances the existence of the required intent. In Yopps v. State, 234 Md. 216, at pages 220-221, 198 A.2d 264, the Court of Appeals said: 'Finding the requisite intent to steal is, of course, never a precise process for intent i......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT