Reagan v. State

Thompson, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. William Francis Reagan and William Frederick Edwards, the appellants, were convicted of breaking into a dwelling house in the daytime with intent to steal, by the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County, Judge William B. Bowie presiding with a jury. Reagan was sentenced to a term of ten years; Edwards to a term of four years. They now contend that it was error for the trial court to permit the State to amend the indictment and that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict.

In the early afternoon of February 6, 1968, Eugene Catalano returned to his apartment in Greenbelt, Maryland, Prince George’s County, accompanied by two friends. He left his friends in the front of the apartment house and went to his apartment intending to obtain his pet dog and return to his friends. Catalano unlocked his apartment and entered. ⁴⁷⁹ Upon entering, Catalano was confronted by a stranger who said that he was working in the apartment. Catalano went into the kitchen, took out a butcher knife and rolling pin and returned to the dining room where he saw the two appellants and a third man.

The three men then walked out the front door. Catalano then ran to his balcony window, opened it and hollered downstairs to the three men saying “You guys wait a minute. I want to talk to you. Who do you work for.” The three men did not turn around but kept on walking down the sidewalk.

Catalano rejoined his two companions in the car and gave chase. They apprehended the three men with the help of a police officer. There was nothing taken from the apartment. Appellants first contend that it was error for the trial court to allow an amendment to the indictment.

The indictment was based on Md. Code Art. 27 § 30 (b) but the words “in the daytime” were omitted, and were supplied by the amendment. The first subsection of Section 30 pertains to breaking and entering at night, and the second subsection pertains to breaking in the daytime. In Reagan v. State, 4 Md. App. 590 , 244 A. 2d 623 the Court held that the words “in the