Grimes v. State

Thompson, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Claude Grimes, the appellant, was convicted of grand larceny by the Criminal Court of Baltimore, Judge Charles D. Harris presiding without a jury. He was sentenced to a term of ten years. On appeal he complains (1) that his conviction was based solely on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice; (2) that he should not have been convicted of larceny based upon the recent possession of stolen goods when he was, at the same trial, acquitted of the charge of receiving the goods; (3) that since there was a choice the trial judge should have convicted him of the lesser crime of receiving rather than the greater crime of larceny; and (4) that possession of recently stolen goods is not sufficient to support a conviction for larceny.

Herbert Henderson, an officer of M. Kovens Company, a Maryland Corporation, testified that on December 1, 1966, at about 6:30 P.M. he learned that one of the company’s vans was missing, containing furniture valued at One Thousand ⁶⁰⁹ Three Hundred and Seventy-Four Dollars ($1,374); and that all but five of the missing items were recovered at 2016 N. Payson Street, the home of one Jesse L. Wise. Henderson was prompted to go there by a telephone call received at about 9:00 A.M. the next morning. In that call he was informed by a man, who gave the name of Philip Dorsey, but who is otherwise unknown, that the “Kovens stuff” was at that address and that he should ask for “Buck”. He went there with two police «officers, arriving about 10:30 A.M. They were freely admitted by Wise (“Buck”) who showed them the merchandise in the basement and on the second floor.

Some of the merchandise was still in brown packing. Wise told Henderson that Claude Grimes, the appellant, brought the furniture there and asked if he could store it in his house. Wise testified that he lived at 2016 N. Payson Street, and on December 1, 1966, just before dark, Grimes came to his home and asked if he could leave some things. Wise replied that he could and resumed playing a card game with his wife and children in the kitchen.

He stated he didn’t pay much attention to how much was brought in by Grimes and two other men and didn’t know what was brought into the house. Grimes denied participation, claiming he didn’t leave his house at all on December 1, 1966. He claimed he had three visitors on that date but none of them testified. He admitted having previously been employed by Kovens and admitted familiarity with the Kovens’ truck operations.

The lower court carefully summarized the evidence indicating that he was impressed with Wise and believed his testimony and that he did not believe Grimes’ alibi, and stated further that he thought some of the alibi witnesses had committed perjury. I Was Wise an Accomplice ? The test to determine whether or not a witness is an accomplice is whether he himself could have been indicted and convicted for the offense either as a principal or as an accessory before the fact, Watson v. State, 208 Md. 210 , 117 A. 2d 549 , 2 Wharton, Criminal Evidence § 448 (Anderson’s 12th Ed.). Grimes contends that since the evidence showed that Wise was ⁶¹⁰ in possession of the stolen merchandise he could also have been convicted as being the thief.

This argument overlooks that portion of the rule which holds that an accused can be convicted only in the absence of a reasonable explanation, Anglin v. State, 1 Md. App. 85 , 227 A. 2d 364 . In the present case the trial court stated that he believed Wise’s story; therefore we must hold that his explanation was reasonable. Maryland