Holtman v. State

Powers, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Church-going is considered by most people to yield beneficial results. Charles R. Holtman undoubtedly takes the opposite view. On October 17-18, 1968 he went to three churches in Baltimore, with the result that in a bench trial before Judge David Ross in the Criminal Court of Baltimore in April, 1970, he was convicted on one count each of three separate criminal indictments.

From those convictions and the sentences imposed in each case he appealed. Berkley Baptist Church At about 1:30 P.M. on October 17, 1968 Helen Gibson, who was employed in the office of the Berkley Baptist Church was winding up her work preparatory to leaving when appellant appeared at the door, carrying a long stick, and said “I want your money.” He told her he was an escaped murderer and if she behaved she would be all right. He ordered her to lie on the floor, and asked for her pocketbook. She told him where it was, and he took her money, approximately $3.00, from it and put it back.

He went upstairs, and she escaped and notified the police. On these facts indictment 5197 charged Holtman with robbery, assault with intent to rob, assault, larceny, and receiving stolen goods. He was convicted of robbery. He contends that the evidence did not justify the conviction because (a) the victim was not put in fear and (b) the money was not taken from her person.

That the victim’s compliance with appellant’s order to lie down and his demand for her pocketbook resulted from fear of violence is too obvious to require discussion. In Williams v. State, 7 Md. App. 683 , 256 A. 2d 776 , we said at page 685, quot ¹⁷⁰ ing from Clark and Marshall, Crimes, (6th ed.) § 12.09, that robbery is: “the felonious taking and carrying away of the personal property of another, from his person or in his. presence, by violence, or by putting him in fear.” The pocketbook was “in her presence”, and the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction of robbery. Hillsdale Methodist Church Charles Tracey, custodian of the Hillsdale Methodist Church, testified that he left the church at about four o’clock on October 17, 1968. The doors were locked and the premises were secure.

He returned about 6:30 and opened a door. Some children ran in and promptly returned, saying that there was a burglar upstairs. Tracey went up and saw a big hole in the door of the minister’s study. Appellant appeared at the hole, then came through it, where Tracey confronted him.

After some conversation, during which appellant said he was looking for money, Tracey told him not to go away, but while Tracey was making a telephone call, appellant disappeared. The police arrived shortly thereafter. The desk drawers in the study had been pulled out. Tracey testified that a basement window had been broken, and that appellant said he came in through it.

On these facts indictment 5199 charged appellant with daytime housebreaking, rogue and vagabond, storehouse breaking ($100 and upwards) and storehouse breaking (less than $100). At the close of the State’s evidence the judge granted a motion for judgment of acquittal as to the two storehouse breaking counts. Appellant was convicted of daytime housebreaking. We held in Sizemore v. State, 10 Md. App. 682 , 272 A. 2d 824 , at page 689: “One who breaks a church-in the day or night with intent to commit murder or felony therein, or with intent to steal goods of the value of ¹⁷¹ $100 or more is guilty of the storehouse breaking proscribed by Code, Art. 27, § 32. * * * But a person who breaks a church is not guilty of the statutory burglary proscribed by Code, Art. 27, § 30 (a) or the crime proscribed by § 30 (b) because a necessary element of those offenses is that it be a dwelling house that be broken and a church is not a dwelling house.” In Sizemore , decided January 8, 1971, Judge Orth for this Court discussed the “quaint turn” by which Lord Coke referred to a church as the mansion-house of God, and pointed out that breaking into a