Hunt v. State

Powers, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Lest our decisions in Skinner v. State, 16 Md. App. 116 , 293 A. 2d 828 (1972) and Nutt v. State, 16 Md. App. 695 , 299 A. 2d 468 (1973) be misconstrued, we shall give our reasons for affirming the conviction of Andre Hunt on a charge of maintaining his apartment as a common nuisance, based upon evidence seized on a single day in the execution of a search warrant. We also affirm his convictions on several counts of possession of narcotics and paraphernalia. The search warrant was issued on the application of Detective Thomas W. West of the Narcotics Unit of the Baltimore City Police Department.

He and Detectives Pennington and Requer executed the warrant at 8:00 A.M. on 14 May 1972 by a search of Hunt’s apartment at 1675 Vincent Court, and the seizure of contraband and other evidence there. In a Sears Roebuck bag the detectives found a cellophane bag containing heroin, several measuring spoons, 10 or 12 playing cards, and numerous rubber bands. In a brown paper bag they found 250 glassine bags of heroin, in 10 bundles, each consisting of 25 bags. They also found a quantity of empty glassine bags, and a small envelope of marihuana.

In addition to the contraband the detectives seized numerous personal papers of Andre Hunt including letters, credit cards, and bills showing his name, and the address of 1675 Vincent Court. They also seized two photographs, one of a man known to Detective West as Bernard Lee, alias James Wesley Carter, alias Bighead Brother, a convicted narcotics violater. A single sheet of paper showed these notations: “$3200 — 1 pc”, “1600 Bundles (16) 1/2 pc. cut down”, “Bundles — set price for work at least $900”, and a list of first names or nicknames. Sheets in a small notebook listed eight or nine first names or nicknames, after each of which was a single digit number such as 1,2, or 5. ¹⁶⁶ Detective West, conceded to be an expert in the area of narcotics, testified that he was familiar with most of the names.

Asked what the numbers meant, he said: “Obviously that he gave them five bundles of drugs, whatever number is besides the man’s name is the number of bundles that he gave to him.” The detective explained the terms used: “$3200.00 is what he paid for the piece, one ounce of heroin. Depending on the quality of it, evidently it was high quality heroin, $3200.00 for a piece. Normally it’s a thousand to twelve to $1400.00 for a piece of heroin. He obviously put a considerable cut on it, having cut it down and packed it and put it into bundles similar to these, and then he distributed it to these various people, Souse, Ronnie, Al, Brother.” Summarizing the meaning of the things seized Detective West testified: “This person was obviously purchasing relatively large quantities of drugs unadulterated, adulterating the drugs, and then packaging them into individual bundles, or individual glassine bags, placing them into 25 glassine bags per bundle, and distributing the bundles, but not the individual bags.” He classified it as a large operation.

In Skinner v. State, supra, this Court, speaking through Judge Moylan, made it clear that common nuisance under Code, Art. 27, § 286 (a) (5), 1 should be taken in its common law meaning in terms of the continuing and recurring character of the offense, as delineated by earlier appellate decisions in Maryland. We did not lay down a rule that because evidence is found only on a single occasion it cannot ¹⁶⁷ be sufficient to show a crime of a continuing nature. Explaining the question involved in Skinner , we said at 124: “Under the fourth count, the appellant was convicted of keeping his automobile as a common nuisance for the purpose of keeping or selling narcotic drugs, in violation of Article 27, Section 286. The only evidence against the appellant, in this regard, was that the contraband drugs and paraphernalia were found in his automobile on the single day when it was searched.

The only question before us is whether the keeping and maintaining of a ‘common nuisance’ under Section 286 (a) (5) contemplates that the offense shall be of a continuing or habitual character or not. Although we have dealt with the statute on several