Gazaille v. State

PER Curiam. Maurice Ernest Gazaille, the appellant, was convicted by a jury of daytime housebreaking and grand larceny in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County before Judge James H. Pugh. Such facts as are necessary for the opinion are stated hereinafter. I Gazaille complains that certain articles, constituting “fruits” of an illegal arrest, were introduced into evidence.

Since there was no objection to the introduction of the articles at the trial, the question is not properly before this court, Maryland Rule 1085, Porter v. State, 230 Md. 535 , 187 A. 2d 870 . In Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643, 659 , 81 S. Ct. 1684, 1693 (1961) at footnote 9, the Supreme Court stated that: “As is always the case, however, state procedural requirements governing assertion and pursuance of direct and collateral constitutional challenges to criminal prosecutions must be respected.” II Gazaille complains that Maryland law does not define the crimes of grand larceny and daytime housebreaking but merely provides a punishment for the crimes; that since the crimes did ⁴⁶⁴ not exist at common law and are not defined under present statutes, daytime housebreaking and grand larceny do not exist under Maryland law. Maryland Code Art. 27, § 340 does not define grand larceny but merely provides a punishment. However, grand larceny was a common law crime, Clark and Marshall, Law of Crimes § 12.07 (6th Ed. 1958), and is a part of existing law in Maryland under Article 5 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights which adopted the common law that existed on July 4, 1776.

Maryland Code Art. 27, § 30 (b) extends the definition of burglary to include “Any person * * * who shall be convicted of the crime of breaking a dwelling house in the daytime *