Mason v. State

Anderson, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Appellant, Joseph Mason, was tried on May 1, 1969 in ⁶³ the Criminal Court of Baltimore by Judge Solomon Liss, sitting without a jury, upon Indictment No. 6109 for grand larceny of an automobile, and upon Indictment No. 6108 for petit larceny of a set of automobile license plates. Judge Liss found appellant guilty and sentenced him to five years on Indictment No. 6109 and one year on Indictment No. 6108, the one year term to be consecutive with the five year term, under the supervision of the Department of Correctional Services. Appellant presents three questions on appeal.

They are: 1. Whether the State proved the stolen automobile had a value of $100.00 or more when it was stolen? 2. Whether the State proved Mason stole (a) the automobile and (b) the license plates? 3. Whether both judgments were tainted by the trial court’s prior knowledge of an indictment for conspiracy to commit robbery outstanding against the appellant?

I In cases involving grand larceny the State has the burden of proving that the goods stolen were of the requisite value of $100.00 or more. Jones v. State, 6 Md. App. 344 , 251 A. 2d 46 . The test of value is market value. Cofflin v. State, 230 Md. 139 , 186 A. 2d 216 .

The owner of personal property in common use may express an opinion as to its value without qualification as an expert. Cofflin v. State, supra. In the instant case Mr. Joseph Green, the owner of the automobile in question, testified that he had purchased the car for $795.00 a year prior to the time it was stolen. When asked on cross-examination whether he knew what the value of the automobile was when it was stolen, he replied that he did not.

There was no other evidence adduced by the State to show market value of the car. We find that the State has failed to meet its burden of proof. There was in fact no testimony or other evidence before the trial court from which the ⁶⁴ court could find that the value of the automobile at the time of its theft was $100. or upwards. Therefore, we must reverse the conviction in