Howard v. State

Dyer, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The Appellant, James Earl Howard, was convicted in the Criminal Court of Baltimore, in a non-jury trial, of receiving stolen goods and sentenced to four years in the Maryland Correctional Institution. It appears that the prosecuting witness left her home for work at approximately 5 :30 a.m. on September 8, 1965. Upon her return at 2:45 p.m., she found that her house had been entered by ripping off the screen of her front screen door (both ³⁸¹ inner doors were unlocked) and that a stereo tape recorder, AM-FM portable radio, portable tape recorder, and a white j acket had been removed from the front bedroom.

The investigating officer testified that as a result of information received from the prosecuting witness that the Appellant had been seen at her home the preceding day knocking on her door and looking in the window, he talked with the Appellant on the street corner at about 9:45 p.m. on the evening of September 8th. The Appellant admitted having been on the premises the previous day, but denied any knowledge of the articles taken therefrom. When reminded by the officer that the missing articles had been sent home by a soldier serving in Viet Nam, the Appellant stated that, although he had nothing to do with breaking into the home, he had received the stolen articles from the individuals who had taken them. He said he received them in an alley behind the house from which they were taken, sold the tape recorder and radio to a Mr. Ashby and gave the coat to a girl.

He told the officer where the articles could be found and all the articles except the coat were recovered. The girl to whom he said he had given the coat denied ever having received it. At the trial, the Appellant admitted that when first questioned by the officer he denied any knowledge of the missing articles. He further testified that when the officer enumerated the articles taken, “I told him I knew where they was at.” He knew where they were located, he added, because he had been confronted with “associates” of his who had the articles in their possession and had asked him where they could dispose of them.

The prosecuting witness testified, in rebuttal, that she talked with the Appellant after the preliminary hearing and he told her “that he didn’t actually go into her house but he knew the boys who did”; and that “he was out in the back of the alley”. The four elements necessary to constitute the offense of receiving stolen goods are (1) receiving, (2) stolen property, (3) with knowledge that it is stolen, and (4) with fraudulent intent. Jordan v. State, 219 Md. 36, 43 (1959). The Appellant contends that there is no evidence that the crime of receiving stolen goods was committed.

He concedes that the trial judge had the right