Davis v. State

BLOOM, Judge. Tyrone A. Davis was convicted by a jury in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, for which he was sentenced to four years imprisonment. The sole question presented on his appeal from that judgment is whether the trial judge erred by failing to instruct the jury on the defense of “honest belief.” ²⁹² Baltimore City police found appellant in the driver’s seat of a stolen car, which had crashed into a house. He was charged with theft and unauthorized use of the vehicle.

Appellant presented evidence that purported to raise the defense of “honest belief.” He explained that he was at a shopping center in Cherry Hill. Bridget Norris drove past him. She was “hacking” (operating an unlicensed cab), and appellant flagged her down. He asked her to drive him to Mondawmin and she agreed.

Appellant averred that he had no reason to believe that Ms. Norris’s vehicle was stolen; on the contrary, Ms. Norris told him that the vehicle had been lent to her by a friend. During the ride, Ms. Norris crashed the car into a house. Appellant explained that both he and Ms. Norris got out of the car. She left, he said, to call the police, while he remained with the car.

About ten minutes later the police arrived and placed him under arrest. Officer Anthony Brown of the Baltimore City Police Department, testifying for the State, stated that when he arrived he saw appellant sitting in the driver’s seat of the car. Based on the evidence presented by the defense, appellant’s counsel asked the trial judge to give the jury an “honest belief’ instruction as to both theft and unauthorized use, explaining her request as follows: An honest belief instruction, in that if they find that the defendant acted in an honest belief that he had a right to obtain or exert control over the property as he did, then that would be a defense as to theft in section 343, defenses to theft.... But I’m also arguing that it would be a defense for unauthorized use because guilty knowledge is essential.

The court denied counsel’s request, and the question now presented to us- is whether the trial judge’s refusal to instruct the jury on the defense of “honest belief,” pursuant to Md. Code (1957, 1992 RepLVol.), Art. 27, § 343, was error. Since appellant was acquitted of theft, we need consider only whether the requested “honest belief’ instruction was required for the unauthorized use charge. ²⁹³ Art. 27, § 343 lists the statutory defenses to the offense of theft, one of which is that the “defendant acted in the honest belief that he had the right to obtain or exert control over the property as he did.” Art. 27, § 343(c)(2). This section was recodified as part of the consolidation of the laws of theft. Laws of Maryland, 1978, Ch. 849.

The statute on unauthorized use, Art. 27, § 349, was not part of this consolidation; it is a separate code section from the theft