Maryland case law › Moore v. State

Moore v. State

13 Md. App. 50 (1971) · Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
Court of Special Appeals of MarylandDisposition: ReversedCarter✓ Good law
HoldingThe appellant was convicted by a jury in the Criminal Court of Baltimore of storehouse breaking (a drugstore) with intent to steal property over the value of $100, in violation of Md.

Carter, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The appellant was found guilty by a jury in the Criminal Court of Baltimore of storehouse breaking (a drugstore) with intent to steal property over the value of $100 in violation of Art. 27 § 32 of the Maryland Code and sentenced to five years in prison. He appeals from this judgment, claiming that the trial court committed reversible error when it instructed the jury that Abbie McKnight, a twelve year old boy, was not an accomplice whose testimony required corroboration in order to convict. Appellant contends now, as he did below in excepting to the court’s instructions, that whether McKnight was an accomplice was a question of fact for the jury, and not a question of law for the court.

The wife of the owner of the drugstore testified that one of the windows in the vestibule passageway leading into the drugstore was broken and had been boarded up before the store was closed for the day about 7 p.m. on September 7, 1970. Abbie McKnight testified that as he 52 was walking along the street near the store about 8:30 p.m. on September 7th, the appellant stopped him and inquired if he wanted to make a dollar. McKnight replied he did not because he did not trust anybody he did not know. Appellant then told McKnight that he was going to beat his “tail” unless he entered the drugstore and handed watches out to him.

Under this threat from a grown man (22 years old) McKnight allowed himself to be forced into a hole (2x3 feet) near the broken window that had been boarded up. McKnight further stated that before any of the watches could be handed out, the police arrived and took him in custody while he was inside the store. The police officer testified that while he and his partner were making a routine patrol in their car about 9 p.m., he spotted the appellant standing against the front door inside the

This is a preview of Moore v. State. About 50% of the opinion remains. Read the complete opinion in RecordCite.