In re Landon G.

WOODWARD, J. On December 23, 2009, the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County, sitting as a juvenile court, found appellant, Landon G., a juvenile, involved in the delinquent acts 1 of criminal possession of stolen property, in violation of Maryland Code (2002), § 7-104(c) of the Criminal Law Article (“C.L.”); unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, in violation of C.L. § 7-203; motor vehicle theft, in violation of C.L. § 7-105; and related offenses. Appellant was adjudicated a delinquent and subsequently placed on probation under the supervision of the Maryland Department of Juvenile Services and ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $120. On appeal, appellant presents one question for our review, 2 which we have rephrased and divided into three questions to facilitate our analysis: I. Was there sufficient evidence to support the finding of appellant’s involvement in the crime of criminal possession of stolen property, in violation of C.L. § 7-104(c)?

II

Was there sufficient evidence to support the finding of appellant’s involvement in the crime of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, in violation of C.L. § 7-203?

III

Was there sufficient evidence to support the finding of appellant’s involvement in the crime of motor vehicle theft, in violation of C.L. § 7-105? For the reasons set forth herein, we shall affirm the judgment of the trial court. ⁴⁸⁸ BACKGROUND At the adjudicatory hearing on December 23, 2009, the following evidence was adduced. On September 17, 2009, Wendy Pittman notified the police that her four-door 2006 Honda Accord had been stolen from where it was parked in the front of her home. Pittman had not given anyone permission to use her vehicle and did not see who took it.

In the afternoon of September 26, 2009, Pittman was driving home from church when she observed her stolen vehicle make a right turn out of a Shell gas station onto Oxon Hill Road in Prince George’s County. Pittman immediately called 911 to report that she had spotted her vehicle. Pittman then followed the vehicle for about thirty to forty-five minutes prior to the arrival of the Prince George’s County police. She testified that at one point the vehicle went into the Maplewood subdivision and parked; the occupants then went into a house.

Later, when the occupants exited the house and left in the vehicle, Pittman began to follow the vehicle again. Officer Joseph Keifline and his partner, Officer Horne, 3 of the Prince George’s County Police Department received the 911 report, responded to the area, and observed the Honda being followed by Pittman in a black BMW. The officers, who were in a marked patrol car, followed the Honda into a cul-desac, at which point the officers activated the patrol car’s emergency lights. Officer Keifline testified that the stolen vehicle “made a U-turn” in the cul-de-sac and “headed towards [the] police cruiser.” The vehicle then drove through the front yards of several residences and came to a stop.

At that point, five individuals, including appellant, got out of the vehicle and fled on foot. 4 According to Officer Keifline, they “ran through the yard, over the fence, into the next street.” ⁴⁸⁹ The vehicle was left in gear and continued to move forward until it hit a telephone pole. Officer Horne got out of the patrol car and chased appellant and the four other individuals on loot. Officer Keifline, meanwhile, drove around the neighborhood in the patrol car and in about two or three minutes apprehended appellant and Patrick McB. (“Patrick”), the driver of the vehicle. 5 Later, when Pittman recovered the vehicle, it was being operated with the keys.

Pittman also testified that on the day that her car was taken, September 17, 2009, the car had a value of $22,000. At the adjudicatory hearing, Patrick testified on behalf of the defense that, on September 26, 2009, he was walking to the barbershop when an individual named “JJ” pulled up in a Honda Accord and offered to lend the vehicle to Patrick. 6 Patrick accepted the offer. According to Patrick, the vehicle was being operated with the keys when he obtained it from JJ. Thereafter, Patrick picked up appellant.

Patrick testified that his family and appellant’s family “have been friends for as long as we can remember.” Appellant knew that Patrick did not own a car. Patrick testified that, when appellant entered the vehicle, the following conversation took place: I told [appellant] that I got the car from this guy I knew around the neighborhood. And I think [appellant] asked me, was it stolen. I said, no, because the keys, and I told him that it was his [JJ’s] vehicle, and we were just going to go to our friend’s house, and we’ll back [sic], drop them off.

After appellant got in the vehicle, Patrick picked up three more people. Patrick drove the vehicle for “45 minutes to an hour” before he noticed that he was being followed by a police car. On cross-examination, Patrick testified that he attempt ⁴⁹⁰ ed to evade the police officers and that he and appellant ultimately fled from the vehicle on foot: [THE PROSECUTOR]: ... And you see the police coming up upon you.

And, even though you’ve got this car and it’s yours’ [sic] to use, you try to evade them? [PATRICK]: Yes. Because, at that time, after I noticed the police car, everything started running through my mind. I assumed that [the vehicle] had to have been stolen, because why else would, you know, would [the police] be trying to stop me? [THE PROSECUTOR]: Okay. And you did try to evade the police? [PATRICK]: Yes, sir. [THE PROSECUTOR]: ...

And [both you and appellant] fled and jumped over fences to get away from the police? [PATRICK]: Yes, sir. Appellant did not testify at his trial. Appellant was charged, as a juvenile, with nine separate theft-related and malicious destruction offenses: motor vehicle theft, in violation of C.L. § 7-105 (Count 1); criminal possession of stolen property with a value of $500 or more, in violation of C.L. § 7-104(c) (Count 2); criminal possession of stolen property with a value of $500 or less, in violation of C.L. § 7-104(c) (Count 3); unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, in violation of C.L. § 7-203 (Count 4); tampering with a motor vehicle without the consent of its owner, in violation of Maryland Code (1977, 2009 Repl.Vol.), § 14-104(a) of the Transportation Article (Count 5); malicious destruction of property in excess of $500, in violation of C.L. § 6-301 (Count 6); malicious destruction of property not exceeding $500, in violation of C.L. § 6-301 (Count 7); conspiracy to commit motor vehicle theft, in violation of Maryland common law (Count 8); and conspiracy to commit criminal possession of stolen property with a value of $500 or more, in violation of Maryland common law (Count 9). ⁴⁹¹ At the conclusion of the December 23, 2009 trial, the trial court found appellant involved on all counts, with the exception of Count 5, the unlawful tampering with a motor vehicle. The trial judge merged Counts 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7 into Count 1 (motor vehicle theft), and merged Count 9 into Count 8 (conspiracy to commit motor vehicle theft). 7 The court placed appellant on an indefinite period of supervised probation and ordered him to pay restitution in the amount of $120 to Pittman. 8 This timely appeal followed.

STANDARD OF REVIEW “Our standard of review for sufficiency of trial evidence is whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt when the evidence is presented in the light most favorable to the State.” Bible v. State, 411 Md. 138, 156 , 982 A.2d 348 (2009) (quotation marks omitted). “This same standard of review applies in juvenile delinquency cases. In such cases, the delinquent act, like the criminal act, must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” In re Timothy F., 343 Md. 371, 380 , 681 A.2d 501 (1996) (citation omitted). We are cognizant of the principle that the fact-finder “possesses the ability to choose among differing inferences that might possibly be made from a factual situation and [the appellate court] must give deference to all reasonable inferences [that] the fact-finder draws, regardless of whether [the ⁴⁹² appellate court] would have chosen a different reasonable inference.” Bible, 411 Md. at 156 , 982 A.2d 348 (alterations in original) (quotation marks omitted); see also State v. Smith, 374 Md. 527, 534 , 823 A.2d 664 (2003) (“We give due regard to the [fact-finder’s] findings of facts, its resolution of conflicting evidence, and, significantly, its opportunity to observe and assess the credibility of witnesses.” (alteration in original) (quotation marks omitted)). “If the evidence either showed directly, or circumstantially, or supported a rational inference of facts which could fairly convince a trier of fact of the defendant’s guilt of the offenses charged beyond a reasonable doubt[,] then we will affirm the conviction.” Bible, 411 Md. at 156 , 982 A.2d 348 (alteration in original) (quotation marks omitted). DISCUSSION I. Criminal Possession of Stolen Property—C.L. § 7-104(c) On appeal, appellant argues that there was insufficient evidence in the record to show that he was involved in the theft of Pittman’s vehicle, in violation of C.L. § 7-104(c).

According to appellant, § 7-104(c) criminalizes “the possession of stolen property knowing that it has been stolen or believing that it probably has been stolen.” Appellant claims, relying principally on this Court’s decision in In re Melvin M., 195 Md.App. 477 , 6 A.3d 955 (2010), that his “presence in the stolen car two weeks” after the car was reported as stolen, “along with his flight upon a police chase and without any knowledge on his part that the car he was in was stolen,” was not sufficient “to establish possession of recently stolen goods and thus theft of the vehicle.” In response, the State argues that the trial court’s détermination that appellant was involved in the theft of the vehicle, in violation of § 7-104(c), must be sustained, because “the evidence permits the inference that [appellant] was both in ‘possession’ of the vehicle and aware that it had been stolen.” ⁴⁹³ Specifically, the State points out that appellant fled from the vehicle after the vehicle was stopped by the police, and contends that such flight could have “been the result of his consciousness of guilt with respect to the theft of the vehicle.” Citing In re Melvin M., the State asserts that where, as here, “presence is coupled with other evidence of guilt such as flight, the evidence [is] ... sufficient to support the inference that the passenger, as a recent possessor of the stolen vehicle, was involved in its theft” under § 7-104(c). C.L. § 7-104(c), which is titled “Possessing stolen personal property,” provides, in relevant part: A person may not possess stolen personal property knowing that it has been stolen, or believing that it probably has been stolen, if the person: (i) intends to deprive the owner of the property; (ii) willfully or knowingly uses, conceals, or abandons the property in a manner that deprives the owner of the property; or (iii) uses, conceals, or abandons the property knowing that the use, concealment, or abandonment probably will deprive the owner of the property. (emphasis added). Thus the crime of possessing stolen property under § 7-104(c) consists of four elements: (1) the property must be stolen; (2) the defendant must be in possession of the stolen property; (3) the defendant must know that the property has been stolen or believe that it probably has been stolen; and (4) the defendant must intend or act to deprive the owner of the property in the manner described in § 7-104(c)(i), (ii), or (iii).

In the case sub judice, appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting two of the above elements, to wit, appellant’s possession of the stolen vehicle and knowledge that the vehicle was stolen or belief that the vehicle probably had been stolen. ⁴⁹⁴ Possession of the Stolen Vehicle In the recent case of In re Melvin M., this Court addressed the issue of whether the mere presence as a passenger in a stolen vehicle is sufficient to establish possession of that vehicle to support a conviction of theft of property under C.L. § 7-104(c). 195 Md.App. at 485-86 , 6 A.3d 955 . In In re Melvin M., on July 12, 2008, at about 9:00 a.m., the owner of a vehicle parked her car at a friend’s house in the Georgetown area of Washington D.C. and left the keys inside the vehicle. Id. at 479, 6 A.3d 955 . When the owner returned to her friend’s house at around 5:00 p.m. that day, her vehicle was gone.

Id. At 11:00 p.m. the same day, fourteen hours after the owner parked the vehicle at her friend’s house, a Maryland state trooper observed the stolen vehicle make a left turn on a red arrow on Route 301 in Charles County, Maryland. Id. at 480 , 6 A.3d 955 . The trooper attempted to stop the vehicle, but the vehicle sped away and the trooper gave chase.

Id. During the chase, the vehicle hit a curb, flipped onto its roof, and landed in a parking lot of a 7-Eleven store. Id. By coincidence, several police officers from the Prince George’s County Police Department were sitting in a police car in the same parking lot when the accident occurred.

Id. The state trooper arrived at the parking lot twenty to thirty seconds after the accident and observed a police officer standing with the appellant “twenty to thirty feet from the vehicle.” Id. The appellant told the trooper that he was a passenger in the vehicle and that he knew that the vehicle was stolen. Id.

After an adjudicatory hearing, the circuit court found the appellant “involved in the delinquent act of theft of property (automobile) worth $500 or more,” in violation of C.L. § 7-104(c). Id. at 479, 481, 6 A.3d 955 . On appeal, the appellant admitted that he knew that the vehicle was stolen, but argued that his mere presence in the vehicle as a passenger was insufficient to establish that he was in possession of the stolen vehicle. Id. at 481 , 6 A.3d 955 . ⁴⁹⁵ We began our analysis with the observation that “possession is an element of the crime of theft.” Id. at 483 , 6 A.3d 955 .

We defined possession as follows: Possession may be actual or constructive, exclusive or joint. Taylor [v. State ], 346 Md. [452,] 458, 697 A.2d 462 [1997]. While the theft statute does not define possession, the dangerous substances section does. Section 5-101(u), Crim.

Law Art., defines “possess” as “to exercise actual or constructive dominion or control over a thing by one or more persons.” “Control” of a dangerous substance has been defined as “the exercise of a restraining or directing influence over the thing allegedly possessed.” Taylor, 346 Md. at 457 , 697 A.2d 462 (quotation marks and citations omitted). Id. In a case involving a stolen vehicle in which the accused is a passenger, possession usually is joint with the driver, because “[t]he person who has a directing influence over a car, determining if and where the car goes and how fast, is generally the driver, as that person is in command of the steering wheel and acceleration.” Id. at 490 , 6 A.3d 955 . Citing Burns v. State, 149 Md.App. 526 , 817 A.2d 885 (2003), we stated that joint possession of stolen property must be “ ‘in such firm and continuing control of the property as to support an inference of mutual guilt.’ ” 195 Md.App. at 485 , 6 A.3d 955 (quoting Burns, 149 Md.App. at 553 , 817 A.2d 885 ).

Because Maryland had not addressed the issue of possession of a stolen vehicle by a passenger, we reviewed cases from other jurisdictions and found that those courts “have held that mere presence in a vehicle, even with knowledge that the vehicle is stolen, is not enough to establish possession of a stolen vehicle to support a theft conviction.” Id. at 486, 817 A.2d 885 . We learned from our review, however, that other courts “have held that presence plus other incriminating evidence may be sufficient to establish theft.” Id. (emphasis added). Included in the “other incriminating evidence” identified by courts of our sister jurisdictions were (1) flight from the police by the driver and defendant passenger, Common ⁴⁹⁶ wealth v. Carson, 405 Pa.Super. 492 , 592 A.2d 1318, 1322-23 , appeal denied, 529 Pa. 616 , 600 A.2d 533 (1991); Commonwealth v. Johnson, 7 Mass.App.Ct. 191 , 386 N.E.2d 798, 800 (1979); (2) use of the vehicle by the defendant and driver in the commission of a crime, Johnson, 386 N.E.2d at 800 ; (3) the defendant’s use of a false name, Johnson, 386 N.E.2d at 800 ; and (4) a relationship between the driver and the defendant passenger, Lynch v. State, 829 So.2d 371 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2002), review denied, 845 So.2d 891 (Fla.2003).

In re Melvin M., 195 Md.App. at 486-87 , 6 A.3d 955 . The State in In re Melvin M. focused on the “other incriminating evidence” of the appellant’s flight from the police. Id. at 486, 490 , 6 A.3d 955 . This Court agreed with the general proposition that, “when a joint enterprise or acting in concert inference has been permitted in this context, it has been based on evidence that the driver and passengers all reacted to being approached by the police by fleeing from the stolen vehicle.” Id.

(emphasis added). The problem for the State, however, was that there was no evidence that the appellant had fled from the police. Id. We reversed the appellant’s conviction, holding that the “mere presence in the vehicle, without more, is insufficient to show possession to sustain a conviction for theft of an automobile.

Rather, the State must present some evidence that the accused took some action which demonstrated his restraining or directing influence over the car.” Id. In In re Melvin M., the conceptual lynchpin underlying a finding of possession of a stolen vehicle by a passenger is the presence of “other incriminating evidence” that tends to show a joint enterprise or acting in concert by the driver and the defendant passenger. Examples of such “other incriminating evidence” include, but are not limited to, flight by the driver and the defendant passenger when approached by the police, the use of the vehicle in a crime or other joint activity, and a relationship between the driver and the defendant passenger. Although not required, all three examples are present in the case sub judice. ⁴⁹⁷ First, it is undisputed that, when the police officers followed the stolen vehicle into a cul-de-sac and activated the emergency lights on their marked police car, the stolen vehicle drove through the front yards of several residences and came to a stop.

Appellant, Patrick (the driver), and the three other passengers got out of the vehicle and fled on foot “through the yard, over the fence, into the next street.” Second, appellant and Patrick used the stolen vehicle in a joint activity, albeit not a crime. When appellant was picked up in the stolen vehicle, Patrick told him that they were going to a friend’s house and would then come back to drop them off. The owner of the stolen vehicle testified that she saw her vehicle go into a residential subdivision and park; the occupants got out of the vehicle, went into a house, and later came out of the house, got into the vehicle, and left the subdivision. The trial court could reasonably infer that appellant was one of the occupants of the stolen vehicle observed by the owner.

Finally, appellant knew Patrick, because Patrick’s family and appellant’s family had been friends for, in Patrick’s words, “as long as we can remember.” Therefore, unlike In re Melvin M, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence, other than appellant’s mere presence in the stolen vehicle, for the trial court to find that appellant was in joint possession of the stolen vehicle with the driver. 9 ⁴⁹⁸ Accordingly, the possession element of C.L. § 7-104(c) was satisfied. Knowledge that the Vehicle was Stolen The facts of the instant case also diverge from those in In re Melvin M. on the element of guilty knowledge. In In re Melvin M., the appellant admitted that he knew that the vehicle was stolen. 195 Md.App. at 481 , 6 A.3d 955 . Here, there was no evidence that appellant admitted that he knew that Pittman’s vehicle was stolen.

Appellant thus argues that there is insufficient evidence to support a finding that appellant knew that the vehicle had been stolen, or believed that it probably had been stolen. See C.L. § 7-104(c). We disagree and shall explain. In Burns, 149 Md.App. 526 , 817 A.2d 885 , Judge Charles E. Moylan, Jr. speaking for this Court, set forth an extensive analysis of the scienter requirement for the crime of criminal possession of stolen property under C.L. § 7-104(c) (known as the common law crime of receiving stolen goods before the enactment of the Consolidated Theft Act, effective July 1, 1979).

Id. at 549-53, 817 A.2d 885 . In Burns , the appellant was one of three occupants of a two-door Chevrolet Cavalier that was stopped by police. Id. at 530 , 817 A.2d 885 . The appellant was the right, rear seat passenger, and the other two occupants were the driver and the front seat passenger.

Id. at 530, 543 , 817 A.2d 885 . Found underneath the front passenger seat, immediately in front of where appellant was sitting, was a loaded and stolen .38 caliber handgun. Id. at 530, 540 , 817 A.2d 885 . The handgun had been stolen four months earlier.

Id. at 549 , 817 A.2d 885 . Included among the appellant’s convictions were the illegal possession of a regulated firearm by a convicted felon and criminal possession of ⁴⁹⁹ stolen property, the latter under § 7-104(c). Id. at 545, 549, 817 A.2d 885 . After concluding that there was sufficient evidence to support the appellant’s conviction for illegal possession of a regulated firearm, this Court addressed the sufficiency of the evidence for the appellant’s conviction for criminal possession of stolen property under § 7-104(c), with a particular emphasis on the requirement of scienter.

Id. at 548-51, 817 A.2d 885 . This Court said: For present purposes, it is undisputed that the handgun in question had been stolen. There is also little question that whoever possessed the gun, jointly or exclusively, on January 14, 2001, intended to continue possessing it. That is clearly enough of a mens rea to satisfy the watered-down animus furandi of theft.

The critical element of the unlawful possession in this case was the necessary scienter, the requirement of “knowing that [the stolen item] has been stolen, or believing that it has probably been stolen.” Section 7—102(b)(1), in pertinent part, defines “knowingly”: When knowledge of the existence of a particular fact is an element of a crime, that knowledge is established if a person is practically certain of its existence. Section 7—102(b)(2) goes on: Equivalent terms such as “knowing” or “with knowledge” have the same meaning. The mere possession of a stolen item, particularly four months after the theft, is not automatically sufficient, in and of itself, to prove a violation of § 7-104(c). Scienter is a required incremental element.

In this case, the State did not offer a shred of evidence to show that the appellant knew or should have known that the gun was stolen. Id. at 550, 817 A.2d 885 (alteration in original) (emphasis added). We indicated that the only evidence of knowledge was possession, but “we nowhere suggested that [the appellant’s] possession was necessarily exclusive rather than joint.” Id. at ⁵⁰⁰ 551 , 817 A.2d 885 . The distinction between joint and exclusive possession is important with respect to crimes against property, because “as an evidentiary predicate for scienter, possession generally contemplates something more by way of continuing and exclusive exercise of dominion and control over property than is required to show that a defendant was merely a participant or joint possessor in some variety of prohibited, but possibly short-lived, behavior.” Id.

We concluded: As a matter of law, it cannot be said that joint possession of a stolen item either is or is not an adequate predicate from which to infer that a particular joint possessor was the thief of the item or had knowledge of the theft. There is no uniform answer. The adequacy of the predicate, as a pure matter of fact, will depend upon the random and ad hoc circumstances of each particular instance of joint possession. Id. at 553 , 817 A.2d 885 (emphasis added).

Because there were no “ad hoc circumstances” present in Bums, either in or beyond the appellant’s joint possession of a handgun, we held that, as a matter of law, there was “not a sufficient factual predicate to give rise to a permissible inference that [the appellant] had the required scienter for a violation of § 7-104(c).” Id. at 554, 817 A.2d 885 . Bums, however, did not identify any of the “ad hoc circumstances of each particular instance of joint possession” that would support an' inference of guilty knowledge under § 7-104(c). Id. at 553, 817 A.2d 885 . For that information, we look to Carson , which as indicated above, was a case relied on by this Court in In re Melvin M..

In Carson , the victim parked his car across the street from his home at 10:30 p.m. Id. at 1320. At 1:30 a.m., the sound of screeching tires woke the victim from sleep. Id.

When he went to the window, the victim saw that his car was no longer parked on the street and immediately called the police. Id. Within minutes after the vehicle was reported as stolen, police officers, who were in an unmarked car, spotted the vehicle parked on the sidewalk a few streets away from the site of the theft. Id.

When a ⁵⁰¹ marked patrol car arrived on the scene, the appellant, Christopher Carson, and two other men exited the vehicle, looked in the direction of the officers, and fled. Id. Carson had gotten out of the car from the front passenger seat. Id.

One of the officers, who never lost sight of Carson, chased and arrested him a short distance from the vehicle. Id. The steering column in the car had been broken, and the right vent window was smashed. Id.

At trial, Carson denied having any connection with the stolen vehicle and claimed that he was not in the vehicle on the night of his arrest. Id. Carson was convicted of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle and receiving stolen property. Id.

The trial court, however, ruled that under the receiving stolen property charge, the Commonwealth had “failed to prove Carson’s guilty knowledge and his possession of the car.” Id. at 1321. Thus the court held that the evidence was insufficient to support that conviction. Id. at 1320. On appeal, the Superior Court of