Cockey v. State

HornEy, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Lewis B. Cockey, charged with eight counts of “bets on horse racing” (Code, 1957, Art. 27, § 240) 1 and two counts of “violation of lottery laws” (Code, 1957, Art. 27, § 362), 2 ³²⁴ was tried by the Circuit Court for Baltimore County sitting without a jury and found guilty generally. The appeal to this Court from the convictions presents questions as to (i) whether the general finding of guilty applied to all of the offenses with which the defendant was charged and (ii) whether the defense of entrapment was available to the defendant as to the charges of violating the lottery laws. At the time of his arrest, the defendant was a cab driver.

On March 12, 1963, Officer Payne and Corporal Elliott, members of the vice squad of the Baltimore County Police Department, began an investigation of the activities of the defendant which continued through March 20th. Other than the fact that a female was observed “making contact with [the cab driver] on numerous days,” there was little evidence as to what the investigation disclosed. By March 23rd, however, the police were apparently satisfied that they had enough information to justify the conclusion that the defendant was violating the lottery laws. On that day Officer Payne was given $5.50 in currency—four marked $1 bills and $1.50 in change—and a slip of yellow paper on which were written lottery numbers.

The officer, who was evidently not in uniform, drove to the vicinity of Adams Cab Stand in Towson with two other police officers. While they waited at a distance, Officer Payne approached the defendant and talked to him briefly before handing him the money and the lottery slip. When the defendant put them in his pocket, the officer identified himself as a police officer and signaled the other two officers who, having observed the incident, came forward and arrested the defendant. Upon searching him, they found, not only the lottery ticket and marked money, but several slips of white paper on which were written bets on horse races. ³²⁵ (i) While it is not clear, the contention that there should have been separate verdicts as to each offense with which the defendant was charged was evidently based on the belief that the trial judge did not intend to find him guilty of a violation of the statute (§ 240 of Art. 27) pertaining to bets on horses.

We do not, however, find it necessary to decide whether the general verdict of guilty applied to the charges of receiving bets on horse races because there was no evidence to support the charges other than the fact that when the defendant was arrested he had slips of paper in his possession containing notations of horse race bets. As the State concedes, such evidence is