McRae v. State

Per Curiam. On March 15, 1967, the appellant, Jimmie McRae, was tried in the Criminal Court of Baltimore by Judge Charles D. Harris, sitting without a jury, and was convicted of grand larceny. He received a sentence of not more than four years. Appellant raises four contentions on appeal: 1.

That the arresting officer did not have sufficient probable cause to arrest the appellant. 2. That the evidence was illegally obtained. 3. That the pre-lineup preparation was conducted in such a way as to prejudicially suggest the identification of the appellant. 4. That the State’s failure to provide the appellant with the names of “informers” constituted reversible error.

On January 31, 1967, at about 2 a.m., a seaman named Sivert S. Nygaard was drinking coffee in the Plying Saucer Restaurant in Baltimore City, when he ordered and paid for a coke for a man seated next to him. Thereafter, he asked that man the whereabouts of the men’s room. Upon entering the restroom he noted he was accompanied by his new acquaintance. They remained in the restroom for two and one-half minutes “and as I was standing there, all of a sudden, all of a sudden I felt a hand in my right hip pocket.

He took my wallet.” The wallet con- ³⁹¹ tamed approximately $895.00. Appellant ran from the restaurant and Mr. Nygaard could not catch him, so he called the police. Officer Frank Wolski was assigned to the investigation and from Mr. Nygaard’s description went to the Police Department’s Bureau of Identification obtaining five photographs, including appellant’s. Officer Wolski testified he had known the appellant and had observed him in the neighborhood.

The photographs were viewed by Mr. Nygaard and he identified the appellant. On February 2, 1967, at about 2:15 a.m., appellant was arrested by Officer Wolski without a warrant and a search of his person revealed $4.00 in his pocket and $320.00 in his left sock. Mr. Nygaard successfully picked the appellant from a lineup and subsequently identified him in court. I As we stated in Boone v. State, 2 Md. App. 479, 480, 235 A. 2d 567 (1967): “It has long been the rule in this State that a police officer may arrest without a warrant where he has reasonable grounds to believe that a felony has been committed and that the person arrested has committed the felony.

Probable cause exists where the facts and circumstances within the officers’ knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that an offense had been committed. Mulcahy v. State, 221 Md. 413 , 158 A. 2d 80 (1960); Jones v. State, 242 Md. 95 , 218 A. 2d 7 (1966).” It is well settled that sufficient probable cause for an arrest exists where there is a report of a felony and a description of the perpetrator. Hopkins and Terry v. State, 239 Md. 517, 520 , 211 A. 2d 831 (1965) citing Farrow v. State, 233 Md. 526, 531 , 197 A. 2d 434 (1964). In the instant case, Officer Wolski knew the felony had been committed, was possessed of the victim’s description of his assailant, was present when the victim picked appellant’s photo ³⁹² graph from the group of five presented, and personally knew the appellant frequented the neighborhood where the crime occurred.

Under the above facts and circumstances, we find that there was sufficient probable cause to believe that a felony had been committed and that the person arrested had committed that felony. II “[Wjhere circumstances make an arrest