Keene v. State

Thompson, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Welton Alfred Keene, the appellant, was convicted in the Criminal Court of Baltimore, Judge James K. Cullen, presiding, for housebreaking and three counts of receiving stolen goods, -involving separate transactions. All sentences were to run concurrently. Although an appeal was entered as to the conviction for housebreaking, no issue concerning that conviction was presented to this court either in the brief or orally, and we see no error therein.

The questions presented for our determination involve whether or not one, Hubert Batten, was the accomplice in the three charges of receiving stolen goods, and if so, whether or not his testimony was corroborated. The stolen merchandise involved in each of the receiving charges was found on the premises of Hubert Batten, a grocer ³²⁷ in Baltimore. He was charged also with being a receiver of stolen merchandise, but after he testified against the appellant, the State’s Attorney confessed not guilty as to those charges. The State’s evidence consisted solely of the fact that a stereo, valued at $99.00 was stolen on September 13, 1966; that a Muntz T.V. set, valued at $600:00 was stolen on September 29, 1966; and that an adding machine, valued at $110.00, in addition to other merchandise, was stolen on October 6, 1966 plus a statement by Mr. Batten that he had purchased these articles as well as some others from Keene over a period of two months ending on October 18, 1966, and under such circumstances that he knew the articles were stolen.

Batten was found in possession of all of the articles which he had purchased from Keene, and apparently he had purchased them for his own use. The articles consisted of an RCA portable T.V. set purchased in late August or early September for $50.00, a Decca Record Player, a week or two later for $50.00, together with a broken typewriter, and a few days later an adding machine for $25,00, and the Muntz T.V. for $200.00 approximately a week after the last purchase. The articles purchased by Mr. Batten were identified as the articles which had been previously stolen. The evidence would have supported the conviction of Keene for the larceny of the goods found to have been stolen as well as receiving.

See Anglin v. State, 1 Md. App. 85 , 227 A. 2d 364 for the rule that one in possession of recently stolen goods must give a reasonable explanation of his possession or face the inference that he is the thief. We are, therefore, faced with the first question of whether or not the receiver, Batten, can be an accomplice of the thief. Maryland follows the general rule that a thief and a receiver are not accomplices. Walker v. State, 242 Md. 715 , 219 A. 2d 4 , Lucchesi and Beavins v. State, 232 Md. 465 , 194 A. 2d