Pedzich v. State

Liss, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The appellant, Roman Pedzich, was charged in the District Court of Maryland for Baltimore City with the larceny of eighteen men’s shirts valued at $10 each, and that he “did wear, carry or knowingly transport a loaded shot-gun in a vehicle traveling on a public road or highway or any road or parking lot generally used by the public of the city of Balto, state of Md. on 10 Nov. 75” (as in the original). The appellant, Anthony Pedzich, was charged in ⁶²² substantially the same language with the deadly weapon violation only. Both appellants prayed a jury trial and the cases were transferred to the Criminal Court of Baltimore.

By a plea bargain agreement, the State stipulated that the value of the goods was under $100, thus reducing the charge from grand larceny to petit larceny. The larceny and deadly weapon cases were submitted on statements of fact. There is no complaint as to the accuracy of the facts as stated to the Court. The trial court entered a judgment of guilty of larceny under $100 against Roman Pedzich, and judgments of guilty of the deadly weapon charges against both Pedzichs.

It is from these judgments that this appeal was taken. New counsel entered their appearance on the appeal and they have raised three issues to be determined. Roman Pedzich initially urges that the evidence submitted to the trial court by the statement of facts was insufficient to support the verdict of guilty of larceny returned against him. The facts offered to the trial court in support of the larceny charge stated that two police officers were called in the early morning hours to the eastern area of the City where they were advised by eyewitnesses that two white men had parked a vehicle in the vicinity and had disappeared in the direction of the railroad tracks located in the neighborhood.

Upon investigation the officers saw appellant and a companion near a van owned by Allegheny Freight Lines. As soon as appellant and the other man saw the police officers approaching, they ran — the police in pursuit. Immediately after being apprehended by one of the officers, Roman Pedzich said, “I know you, you got me.” The State in the statement of facts further advised the trial court that a representative of the freight line would testify that when he left the van at the end of the preceding day, the van and the boxes in it were secure. It was stipulated that the boxes contained men’s shirts; the value of the goods totalling $99.

The State offered, without objection, three photographs of the van showing a number of shirt boxes, one of which had been partially torn open. It was stipulated that ⁶²³ when the appellant and his companion were arrested, they did not have any stolen goods in their possession. This Court in Metz v. State, 9 Md. App. 15, 23 , 262 A. 2d 331, 335 (1970), said that the test as to the sufficiency of the evidence may be stated as follows: “To be sufficient in law to justify a conviction, the admissible evidence adduced must show directly, or circumstantially, or support a rational inference of, the facts to be proved from which the trier of fact could fairly be convinced, beyond a reasonable doubt, of the defendant’s guilt of the offense charged.” Appellant also urges that the State’s ease was deficient in that it failed to prove the asportation of the goods allegedly stolen. This Court said in Wiggins v. State, 8 Md. App. 598, 603-04 , 261 A. 2d 503, 506 (1970), that one of the elements in larceny is the asportation of the property stolen and that it is not necessary that the property be carried any particular distance or that the thief retain possession and control for any particular length of time.

Quoting from Clark & Marshall, Law of Crimes, 6th Ed., § 12.05, p. 738, we said: “The slightest asportation is sufficient. The trespasser must acquire complete control over the property, but the slightest entire removal of it from the place it occupies, and a temporary control of it, even for a moment is enough. It has been said that removal to the distance of ‘a hair’s breadth’ is sufficient.” See Osborne v.