Davis v. State

Marbury, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The appellant, Plarold E. Davis, was indicted and tried in the Circuit Court for Cecil County on six counts for violation of Code (1957), Article 27, § 140 (False Pretenses). He pleaded not guilty, was tried by a jury, found guilty on counts numbered 2, 4, and 6, and not guilty on counts numbered 1, 3, and 5. The court granted the appellant’s motion for a directed verdict on count No. 5, and instructed the jury, before it retired, to find him not guilty on that count.

Davis, beginning on November 1, 1961, to and including November 9, 1961, obtained various sums of money from six residents of Cecil County. The evidence showed that the appellant, some two weeks before his arrest, had a rubber stamp with the term “Church Directory” on it made in Baltimore City. As part of his scheme he would usually call a victim for an appointment and would identify himself by a name and later call upon the victim, using a different name, advising the victim that he was sent by the individual who had talked to him over the telephone. He indicated to the victims that he was selling advertising and collecting money for a church directory, that he represented an existing organization, and on several occasions claimed to be a minister.

Most of the money collected by the appellant was given by means of checks and all of these checks, with the exception of one (involved in the fifth count), were charged to the maker’s account at the ¹⁴¹ drawee bank. On various occasions the appellant issued a receipt, plainly marked with the term “Church Directory”, to the victim who had paid him money. He was arrested November 11, 1961, and his statement to the sheriff of Cecil County admitted there was no such “book” as the church directory, although he stated that he would have put the ads in the directory when it was published. On this appeal from the judgments and sentences imposed, he makes two contentions: 1, that the jury’s verdicts on the five counts of the indictment were inconsistent and repugnant; and 2, that he should have been granted a directed verdict