Dixon v. State

Per Curiam. Jerry Lee Dixon was convicted in a non-jury trial in the Criminal Court of Baltimore on April 25, 1966 of receiving stolen goods and sentenced to three years in the Maryland House of Correction. From that conviction he appeals to this ⁶²⁵ court, setting forth six contentions: (a) that the evidence was insufficient to convict him of receiving stolen goods; (b) that he was arrested illegally; (c) that the fruits of the search and seizure taken at the time of arrest were inadmissible evidence; (d) that an admission made before arrest, without benefit of counsel, was improperly admitted into evidence; (e) that he was subjected to double jeopardy and (f) that he was illegally detained at the Maryland House of Correction pending his re-indictment. On October 4, 1964, the premises of the B & M Truck Rental Company were broken into and a checkwriter, typewriter, cash box, tools, blank checks, and other items were taken.

On October 24, 1964, appellant identified himself as the driver of a car involved in an accident being investigated by a police officer. Because Dixon was unable to produce his operator’s license or registration card, and appeared to be under the influence of alcohol, he was placed under arrest. Upon being notified that his car would be impounded by the police, Dixon became violent and attempted to re-enter the car. During the ensuing scuffle, the police officer had occasion to notice in the car a black typewriter case and an open valise containing a checkwriter.

These items were introduced into evidence at appellant’s trial over his objection. The elements of the crime of receiving stolen property are: (a) the property must be received; (b) it must, at the time of its receipt, be stolen property; (c) the receiver must have guilty knowledge that it is stolen property; (d) his intent in receiving it must be fraudulent. Jordan v. State, 219 Md. 36 ; McGlothlin v. State, 1 Md. App. 256 . We are satisfied that, under the evidence presented, the trial judge could properly find the existence of all these elements and find appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

McCray v. State, 236 Md. 9 . Therefore, appellant’s contention that he was convicted on insufficient evidence is without merit. Appellant contends that he did not commit a misdemeanor in the presence of a police officer and was therefore illegally arrested. The police officer testified that, after appellant identified himself as the operator of the car, when requested to produce his operating license and registration card, he was unable to do ⁶²⁶ so.