Richardson v. State

Morton, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The appellant, William Norman Richardson, was convicted of breaking into a dress shop and stealing merchandise of a value in excess of five ($5.00) dollars by Judge William J. O’Donnell, sitting in the Criminal Court of Baltimore without a jury, and sentenced to serve six years in prison. ' The principal State witness testified that on Sunday, May 7, 1967, at approximately 10:30 a.m., while looking out the window of her third floor apartment, which was across the alley from a dress shop in the four-hundred block of Charles Street in Baltimore City, she heard a noise and observed a man running from the direction of the rear of the building in which the dress shop was located. Immediately thereafter she saw him drive a car to the rear of the building, alight therefrom, and proceed toward the building. Shortly thereafter, she observed him and another individual, whom she identified as Richardson, come from the rear of the building carrying large bundles enclosed in what appeared to be sheets, enter the automobile and depart.

She immediately contacted the police and gave them a detailed description of the automobile and the license number which she had recorded, as well as a description of the individuals. The police immediately entered the dress shop, found that it had been broken into and that merchandise of a retail value approximating six thousand ($6,000) dollars had been taken. When it was ascertained that the license number was issued for an automobile owned by Richardson’s brother-in-lav/ which automobile was in Richardson’s possession at the time of the breaking and entering, a warrant was obtained for Richardson’s arrest. Upon learning that the police were seeking him, Richardson went to the police station, admitted having the auto ⁷²¹ mobile at the time of the theft but denied participating therein, stating that he was with a woman companion from 8:00 p.m. the night before until 11:00 a.m. on the Sunday that the crime was committed.

In this appeal, it is contended that Richardson was denied his constitutional right to counsel, thus rendering inadmissible inculpatory statements given by him to the police and, secondly, that the evidence was legally insufficient to sustain his conviction. We are of the opinion that each contention is without merit. During the course of the police officer’s testimony in the trial below the following colloquy occurred between the court and Richardson’s counsel: CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. EISENSTEIN: Q Officer Fosler, you stated that after warning the defendant, Mr. Richardson, of his rights, you had a conversation with him, is that correct ?

A That is correct. Q And will you tell us what he said to you, if anything ? THE COURT: Is there any cross-examination of the officer— MR. EISENSTEIN: No, sir.

THE COURT: — on the admissibility ? MR. EISENSTEIN: No. THE COURT: It is conceded, then, for the record, that there were no threats or violence or other coercion— MR. EISENSTEIN: That is correct, sir.

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir. THE