Small v. State

Per Curiam. Lawrence Small, the appellant, was convicted of storehouse breaking in a court trial by the Criminal Court of Baltimore. Judge James A. Perrott, the trial judge, sentenced him to a term of five years. Small contends that the court erred in not granting his motion for judgment of acquittal because of a lack of proof of ownership of the building broken into; and, further, that his trial counsel was incompetent.

On April 20, 1968, the Lipsky Drug Company was broken into by Small and another. The indictment charged that Small and a co-defendant “did break the storehouse of Harold Lipsky there situate at 678 West Lexington Street.” At the trial Harold Lipsky testified as follows: “Q. What is your occupation ? “A. Pharmacist. “Q. Where is the pharmacy? “A. 673 West Lexington Street. “Q. Baltimore City? “A. Yes. “Q. A corporation? “A. A partnership.” The witness further testified that he had secured the doors and windows of the premises when he left the night before the breaking, that he gave no one permission to enter, that the value of the inventory in his store was about $12,000 and he identified a picture, which was offered in evidence, as his store window. 1 We held in Sizemore v. State, 5 Md. App. 507 , 248 A. 2d 417 , under the express language of Md. Code, Art. 27, ¹⁴⁹ § 605, that an allegation of ownership by an individual would not support a larceny conviction where the proof showed that the stolen goods were owned by a partnership consisting of that individual and another, unless the indictment in some manner indicated that another was also involved in the ownership. In Melia v. State, 5 Md. App. 354 , 247 A. 2d 554 , we pointed up the distinction in the authorities between adequate proof of ownership to support a conviction for breaking and one for