Myers v. State

Offutt, J., delivered the. opinion of the court. Andrew Reid Myers, the' appellant, was arrested in Norfolk, Virginia, on January 27th, 1920, while in possession of an automobile owned by Mrs. Ray E. Delevia, which had been stolen from her while it was standing on Eutaw Street, in Baltimore, on January 19th, 1920. Upon his arrest, Myers told the Norfolk police that he lived in Baltimore and gave them his name, and they communicated this information, together with a description of the automobile, to the Police Department of Baltimore City, who requested that he be held for them. He and the automobile were then brought to Baltimore City, where he was indicted for the larceny of the automobile and for having and receiving it knowing it-to have been stolen.

He was tried before a jury, which found him not guilty of the larceny, but guilty of the charge of unlawfully having and receiving the automobile knowing it to' have been feloniously stolen and, upon that verdict, the judgment and sentence of the court was that he be confined in the Maryland Penitentiary for ten years, the sentence to run concurrently with like sentences in two other cases. Erom that judgment this appeal was taken. The record contains three exceptions, two of which relate to rulings on evidence and one to the action of the Supreme Bench of Baltimore in overruling a motion to arrest the judgment. Charles Ennis, the office manager of the agency from which the automobile was purchased in February, 1918, was asked to state the “purchase price of that car-.” The appellant ⁴⁹³ objected to the question, but tbe objection was overruled and the witness answered that its purchase price was $1,917.82.

Abe Delevia, who bought the car and gave it to his wife, was asked what he paid for it. This question was also objected to, but the court overruled the objection, and the witness replied that he paid $1,700 for it “after allowance was made.” The rulings of the court in respect to these questions are the subject of the first and second exceptions. Where the value of an article of personal property is in issue in a criminal case the inquiry should be confined to its market value, where it is of such a character that it can be said to have a definite market value. Wharton, Cr.

Ev. (10th Ed.), par. 258. The term “market value,” when applied to such an article, means its present cash or selling price in the open market. It is the price it would bring at a fair sale where one party wanted to sell and the other to buy.

Words & Phrases, 2nd Series. What the market price of a particular article is, is “a conclusion which is largely made up of presumption, and may always be proved by the opinions of witnesses based of necessity in part on hearsay,” but while it may be proved by the opinions of such witnesses, the proof need not be confined to them, but recourse may be had to any facts or circumstances which may aid the court or jury trying the issue in the inquiry before them, and which under the circumstances of the case afford the best available evidence of such value. And where it does not appear that there is any “absolute standard” by which the market, value “may be determined with definiteness and certainty,” it has been held, and we think properly, that proof of the cost of the chattel, in connection with its utility and usage, may be