Byrd v. State

Per Curiam:. John F. Byrd, Jr., who was convicted of larceny by the Criminal Court of Baltimore sitting without a jury, appeals. He contends, essentially, that the State failed to prove the corporate existence of the alleged owner of the stolen vehicle, that it failed to prove the ownership of the vehicle, and that it produced insufficient evidence to convict him of larceny. The indictment under which Byrd was convicted charged him with larceny of a 1961 Chevrolet Impala from “City Chevrolet Co., Inc., a corporation.” At trial, the State’s first question of its first witness — a salesman for City Chevrolet' — - was, “Directing your attention to October 20, 1961 [the date ¹⁵⁰ of the larceny], you were employed by the City Chevrolet Corporation at that time, is that correct?” (Emphasis added.) ■The witness replied, “Yes.” The salesman’s subsequent testimony established that the stolen vehicle belonged to City ■Chevrolet and that he had been using it as a demonstrator at the time of its theft.

The sales manager for City Chevrolet also testified that the car “belonged to City Chevrolet.” Although no testimony concerning the Chevrolet agency — after the initial question to the salesman — identified it as a corporation, each witness thereafter called it “City Chevrolet.” As we said in Richardson v. State, 221 Md. 85, 89 , “formal Tprooi” of a corporation’s existence is not necessary in a criminal proceeding; it may be proved “orally and by general