McGhee v. State

Murphy, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Appellant was convicted by the court sitting without a jury of (a) daytime housebreaking committed on May 23, 1967, and ²⁵⁸ (b) with being a rogue and vagabond on June 2, 1967. He was sentenced to five years under the jurisdiction of the Department of Correction for the housebreaking offense and was given an eighteen-month consecutive sentence under the rogue and vagabond charge. He contends on this appeal that the evidence was insufficient to support either conviction.

The Housebreaking Offense There was evidence adduced at the trial to show that Joseph Kutlik left his home on May 23, 1967 at approximately 9:20 a.m. with his wife to go shopping, securing the house as he left; that when they returned approximately one hour later, they found the glass in the door broken, the house ransacked, and certain items taken; that a locked strong box owned by Mr. Kutlik, and located in his second floor back room in a chiffonier, had been pried open; and that two latent fingerprints, removed from the strongbox by the police on the day of the crime, were identified as those of the appellant. Appellant denied having committed the crime and testified that when the police questioned him on June 14 about the offense, he was caused to place his hands on the box, thus explaining the presence of his fingerprints. There was evidence that the fingerprint comparison had been made prior to June 14. It is well settled that fingerprint evidence must be coupled with evidence of other circumstances tending to reasonably exclude the hypothesis that the print was impressed at a time other than that of the crime.

See McNeil v. State, 227 Md. 298 . In Lawless v. State, 3 Md. App. 652 , we concluded that such “other circumstances” need not be those completely independent of the fingerprint, and may properly include circumstances such as the location of the print, the character of the place or premises where it was found and the accessibility of the general public to the object on which the print was impressed. We there said: “A latent fingerprint found at the scene of the crime, shown to be that of an accused, tends to show that he was at the scene of the crime. The attendant circumstances with respect to the print may show that he was at the scene of the crime at the time it was com ²⁵⁹ mitted.

If they do so show, it is a rational inference, consistent with the rule of law both as to fingerprints and circumstantial evidence, that the accused was the criminal agent.” To like effect, see Mills v. State, 3 Md. App. 693 ; McCargo v. State, 3 Md. App. 646 ; Hannah v. State, 3 Md. App. 646 ; Musgrove v. State, 3 Md. App. 54 . The evidence showed that the victim did not know the defendant and had never seen him before the crime. The strong box upon which appellant’s fingerprints were found was an object of such character, and so located within the victim’s home,, that we conclude that the evidence of appellant’s fingerprints, was sufficient in the circumstances of this case to support the conviction, the breaking being clearly established, and the time between such breaking and the discovery of the crime being a little more than one hour. The Rogue and Vagabond Conviction The evidence showed that on June 2, 1967 at approximately 10:30 a.m., Detective Moore was driving his vehicle when he-observed an individual, later identified as Mark Davis, on the porch of 2544 Boarman Avenue in Baltimore City.

He also then observed the appellant standing on the street alongside the house. Moore made a U turn, coming back to the scene and, after observing Davis place his hands on the door, called him over to ask what he was doing. Davis told the officer that he-was looking for James Montgomery. At this