Stackhouse v. State

Thompson, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Charles E. Stackhouse, the appellant, was convicted in a trial before the court in the Criminal Court of Baltimore, on June 8, 1966. He was convicted on the first counts of six separate indictments as follows: (a) Forgery on the endorsements of three checks in Indictments Nos. 2047, 2048 and 2050; (b) obtaining money by false pretenses from Foodarama, Inc. (a corporation) in Indictment No. 2049; and (c) larceny of three checks from Bethlehem Steel Company, (a corporation) in Indictments Nos. 2051 and 2053. He was sentenced to five years in the Maryland House of Correction for each conviction, all to be served concurrently except No. 2048 which is to be consecutive making a total penalty of ten years. 1 The facts will be disclosed in the discussion of the various contentions.

I Forgery Stackhouse contends that because none of the payees testified that their endorsements were false and no expert on handwriting testified, Sthat there was an insufficient proof of the corpus delicti, outside of his extrajudicial confession, to support the convictions of forgery. The rule that an extrajudicial confession will not warrant a conviction unless there is independent evidence to establish the corpus delicti has been approved in many cases decided by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, Hadder v. State, 238 Md. 341 , 209 A. 2d 70 , Bradbury v. State, 233 Md. 421 , 197 A. 2d 126 , Banks v. State, 228 Md. 130 , 179 A. 2d 126 , Wood v. State, 192 Md. 643 , 65 A. 2d 316 , Whitmer v. State, 1 Md. App. 127 , 227 A. 2d 761 and Koprivich v. State, 1 Md. App. 147 , 228 A. 2d 476 . In Cooper ⁴⁰³ v. State, 220 Md. 183, 190 , 152 A. 2d 120, 124 , the Court said: “However, it is not necessary that the evidence independent of the confession be full and complete or that it establish the truth of the corpus delicti either beyond a reasonable doubt or by a preponderance of proof * * *. The quantum of independent proof of the corpus delicti is to be determined by the circumstances of each particular case * * *.” It is necessary to review the evidence to discover whether or not it is sufficient to support the confession.

William J. War-then, a security chief for the Bethlehem Steel Corporation, testified that the checks involved in the forgery were stolen from the company. Theodore Schloss testified that the checks were cashed at his restaurant and that they would have been endorsed in his presence, but he could not identify the person who did so. In addition, in open court, Stackhouse testified: “I wrote Bethlehem Steel and I have asked those people if there was any way possible I could sort of like make restitution for these things, having signified I have taken these checks.” Under the cases hereinabove cited, we hold that this was a sufficient proof of the corpus delicti to support the conviction where, as here, there was also a free and voluntary confession of the crime. Stackhouse attempts, on appeal, to make much of a discrepancy in the testimony.

The date of the theft of the checks, as alleged and as proven, was subsequent to the date on which the checks were cashed and paid at the bank. A careful reading of the testimony shows that the date of the indictment and the testimonial date of the theft were obvious errors and are therefore immaterial, Chisley v. State, 236 Md. 607 , 203 A. 2d 266 , Pulton v. State, 223