Craig v. State

⁵¹⁶ Gilbert, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Herbert William Craig, Jr., appellant, was tried and convicted in a non-jury trial in the Circuit Court for Charles County of feloniously breaking a dwelling house with intent to steal the goods, chattels, monies and properties of the owners thereof. Appellant was sentenced to a term of two years under the jurisdiction of the Department of Correctional Services. The sole ¡question posed by this appeal is whether or not the evidence was legally sufficient to sustain the conviction. i Testimony established that on the morning of January 25, 1971, the prosecutrix, Mrs. Hines, heard a knock at the door of her home.

She walked into the bathroom to look out of the window in order to see who was at the door, and she observed two boys. She described one of the persons present at her door as having a “tan car coat on, a light brown car coat. He had some kind of white shirt on. He had light brown hair, kind of longish to the shoulder and most of it was combed to the right, straight down, straight hair.” Mrs. Hines then started to walk from the bathroom to the hall, but before she reached the hall she “heard the glass break.” At that point she ran into the hall and down the steps where she “saw one boy with his hand inside my door, standing in my hall, taking his hand out of the glass * * * They both turned around and ran down through my yard.” Mrs. Hines “grabbed a gun and told them to stop.” They complied momentarily, looked at her and then “turned around and kept on going.” In response to a question as to whether or not she could describe the person who was in the hallway, she said, “I came face-to-face with him but I can’t remember his facial features.

All I can remember is that he had really dark brown hair, almost black. It was hanging down over his ears, about ear length and he had a dark jacket on.” The witness described the youth having the ⁵¹⁷ long light brown hair as “the biggest one, he was stocky, chunky, heavy set. He looked like he might be about almost six foot tall.” The young man she confronted in the hallway was “maybe five ten,, a little bit taller than I was and like I said, all I can remember is the hair and jacket, I can’t remember facial features.” Immediately following the flight of the two persons who had attempted to illegally gain access to her home, Mrs. Hines called the State Police. The State attempted to use photographic identification, but the photographs were suppressed by the trial judge because they were impermissibly suggestive.

See Simmons v. United States, 390 U. S. 377 , 88 S. Ct. 967 , 19 L.Ed.2d 1247 (1968) ; Crenshaw v. State, 13 Md. App. 361 , 283 A. 2d 423 (1971) ; Williams v. State, 11 Md. App. 607 , 275 A. 2d 522 (1971) ; Redding v. State, 10 Md. App. 601 , 272 A. 2d 70 (1971) ; Smith and Samuels v. State, 6 Md. App. 59 , 250 A. 2d 285 (1969). No in-court identification of the appellant was made by Mrs. Hines. State Trooper Gawthrop was called by the State and he testified that he lived approximately one-quarter of a mile from the Hines home; that some time prior to noon on the 25th of January, 1971, he received a phone call concerning a breaking and entering in the Hines residence, and a description which he testified to be as follows : “I was advised that two white males, one or both having long hair, dark long hair, one wearing a black jacket and one wearing a brown jacket had broken into the Hines residence and had left the scene on foot.” The Trooper went immediately to his front door which faced the general area, while his wife was getting his revolver and truck keys. His purpose in going to the front door was to view the area and “observe anyone on the roadway.” He then got into his truck and began a search.

The Trooper observed two individuals, “fitting the description * * * hitchhiking. I stopped, got out of my vehicle, they were trying to get in the right hand door.” He described the two individuals as “white males, one was ⁵¹⁸ somewhat bigger than the other, taller and heavier, both of them had long hair, one was wearing a brown corduroy car coat and the other was wearing a black imitation leather car coat.” The Trooper also stated that the arrest was made within a matter of minutes after he left his residence, “probably about five minutes.” The area in which the arrest was made consisted of approximately three housing developments. Trooper First Class Short arrived at the scene of the apprehension and discovered in the other youth’s pocket a pair of black leather gloves with a chain wrapped around the right hand glove. The chain was a “twenty two and one-half inch choke chain.” Trooper Gawthrop identified the appellant as one of the persons arrested.

There was some testimony that both the appellant and the other person