Carroll v. State

Per Curiam. The appellant, Earl George Carroll, was convicted of receiving stolen goods by Judge Samuel W. H. Meloy, sitting without a jury, in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County. He was sentenced to five years under the jurisdiction of the Department of Correction. The appellant contends upon this appeal that the evidence did not show a receiving, that it did not show the requisite guilty knowledge, and that it was insufficient to sustain the conviction.

From the evidence at trial it could be found that Attila K. Sztanko owned a 1966 Chevrolet Corvette convertible, which was stolen sometime during the night of June 11, 1968. On the afternoon of June 12, 1968, the appellant was arrested while ⁶⁴⁹ driving an automobile, in the trunk of which the engine taken from Mr. Sztanko’s Corvette was being carried. Upon the request of the arresting officer, appellant returned to the place where he claimed to have bought the engine, a dirt road in Prince George’s County, and the officer found the Corvette, stripped of its engine, a short distance away from the scene of the alleged sale. The appellant testified that on the evening of June 11, 1968 he received a telephone call from Francis West, who stated that he had obtained an engine of the type the appellant had been wanting to purchase.

The appellant, who lived in Washington, D. C., drove to a dirt road coming off the paved portion of Gardner Road, in a rural section of Prince George’s County. Upon arriving at the dirt road, the appellant noticed a 1961 black Chevrolet “sitting there waiting for us.” One of the occupants of the Chevrolet was Richard Brainer, who offered to sell appellant a 327 cubic inch Corvette engine. After some argument about the price, the appellant agreed to Brainer’s original price of $175. The engine was then transferred from the trunk of the Chevrolet to the trunk of the car appellant was driving.

Brainer then gave appellant “a little extra stuff,” consisting of “a radiator, and I can’t think what else.” In response to the question, “If you go to a junkyard and try to get a 327 [engine] how much do you think they are going to charge you for it?”, appellant replied, “Two hundred fifty dollars, three hundred dollars.” Mr. Sztanko had earlier testified that the value of the engine was about $800. A co-defendant with appellant testified and substantially corroborated appellant’s testimony. The appellant moved for a judgment of acquittal at the end of the State’s case, but this motion was automatically withdrawn, Maryland Rule 7551), when appellant offered evidence in his own behalf after denial of the motion. The motion was renewed at the end of the entire case.

The appellant complains that the State offered no evidence of the existence of parties other than the appellant and his co-defendant and that the trial judge was therefore