Bailey v. State

PER Curiam. The only question requiring a decision on this appeal is whether the evidence was legally sufficient to sustain the conviction of the appellant (John W. Bailey, Jr.) for burglary. When the prosecuting witness woke up about 5 :10 a.m., on December 3, 1960, she saw a colored man standing in the living room of her apartment at 1109 St. Paul Street with his back to her. With the aid of the light in the kitchen—located off a wide hall on the opposite side of the living room from the bedroom—she observed that the intruder was wearing a red and white plaid carcoat and a light cap, but she never saw his face.

Immediately upon telling him that she “was going to put a bullet through his back,” the telephone rang and the man bolted down the hall, into the kitchen and fled through a window. No property was stolen. The police, having been alerted, apprehended the appellant while he was riding in a taxicab approximately seven blocks from the apartment. The cab which he had hailed at Charles Street and Mount Royal Avenue at 5 :25 a.m. had proceeded only a distance of three blocks before it was stopped.

The appellant was arrested because of the similarity of his clothing to that worn by the intruder. ³⁵⁵ At a police line-up with four other men held at 7:3G a.m., the prosecuting witness identified the appellant as the intruder by the clothing he was wearing and by his height and