Maryland case law › Hickman v. State

Hickman v. State

1 Md. App. 578 (1967) · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
Court of Special Appeals of MarylandDisposition: ReversedThompson, J.✓ Good law
HoldingJohn P.

Thompson, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. John P. Hickman, the appellant, complains of a conviction for burglary in a trial before the court, without a jury, in the Criminal Court of Baltimore because (1) his premises were illegally searched and the fruits of the burglary were introduced into evidence over his objection and (2) that the evidence, consisting of the possession of recently stolen goods, was insufficient to convict him of the crime of burglary. The dwelling of Helen Ziolkowski was burglarized on the night of December 27, 1963. Among the items missing were a roast, two pairs of curtains and various coins.

The curtains and some of the coins, found in Hickman’s apartment, were identified as having been taken in the burglary. Sergeant Einolf, of the Baltimore City Police, to justify the search and seizure of the curtains and coins, testified that when he reported for work at 4:00 P.M. on December 29, 1963, he was advised that there was a complaint of a breaking and entering and larceny at Doc’s Chuck Wagon, and that goods of the value of more than one hundred dollars were taken therefrom. That crime is involved in this appeal only insofar as it may justify the search hereinafter described. Later that evening he met one Gloria Lyons at Hawkins Point Road and Quarantine Road in the Curtis Bay area and received from her information that she was living with Hickman at 153 N. Patterson Park Avenue, but she had had an argument with him that night, and he had pushed her out of the car at point where she was talking with the officer.

She further told him that Stack, a co-defendant, and the appellant had broken into Doc’s Chuck Wagon the day before, and that she had been given three cartons of Salem cigarettes from the fruits of the crime. She stated 580 further that there was still a large quantity of cigarettes and some coins from Doc’s Chuck Wagon back at the apartment. ■She later signed a consent for a search of Hickman’s apartment. About 11:00 P.M. Sergeant Einolf accompanied her to the apartment where he helped her move her clothing out of the apartment. While he was at the apartment, Sergeant Einolf ■seized two pairs of new white curtains on a chair in the bedroom and various coins.

The curtains and coins were later identified as being the property of Mrs. Ziolkowski. No warrant either for the search or for an arrest had been issued prior to the search. Charles Stack, a

This is a preview of Hickman v. State. About 50% of the opinion remains. Read the complete opinion in RecordCite.