Pointer v. State

Sybert, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The appellant, Samuel E. Pointer, was convicted under a six count indictment of breaking a storehouse and stealing therefrom goods of the value of five dollars or more (third count), of being a rogue and vagabond (fourth count), and of the larceny of ten cases of cigarettes (fifth count), by the Criminal Court of Baltimore, sitting without a jury. A motion for a new trial in regard to the breaking and stealing count was granted ²⁵ by the Supreme Bench of Baltimore City. The appellant was then sentenced under the other two counts to a term of two years (rogue and vagabond) and three and one-half years (larceny) in the House of Correction, to run concurrently.

The appellant did not testify or call any witnesses. The testimony of the two arresting police officers was that at approximately 1:30 A.M. on November 7, 1963, they observed a Buick automobile being driven with a temporary rear license plate and with its rear tag light out. They followed the vehicle and when it accelerated they turned on their flashing red light. While pursuing the vehicle at high speed they noticed several cases of “Salem” cigarettes through the rear window of the vehicle.

They pursued the auto into a junkyard where, before it completely stopped, they observed three persons (whom they could not see clearly because of the darkness) run from the car into the yard. While searching the yard one officer found the appellant “crouched down” and “hiding” behind a wrecked car about 30 feet from where the chased vehicle had stopped. He was described as “very nervous and he seemed to realize he was being pursued”, and his breathing indicated he had been running. He said “don’t shoot” as the officers approached.

He was arrested and ten cases of “Salem” cigarettes were found in the car. The appellant stated to the police that he was in the junkyard to steal radiators and that he had certain tools with him to carry out this intent. No tools were found at the scene, however. He denied any knowledge of the cigarettes and denied having been in the Buick.

The police did not learn that the cigarettes had been stolen from a warehouse on South Charles Street, some distance from the junkyard, until later that morning. The appellant’s only contention on this appeal is that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his convictions for larceny and being a rogue and vagabond. We think there was sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction of larceny. The trial court was not clearly in error in drawing the inference that the appellant had been an occupant of the vehicle in which the cigarettes were found from the fact that he was apprehended