Thomas v. State

Hammond, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. A jury found that Enoch Thomas had bought copper wire, stolen from the Eastern Shore Public Service Company, ⁵⁶⁰ knowing it to be stolen on various occasions over a period of months. The indictment was in seventeen counts. Some charged larceny of wire above the value of $100.00, some charged larceny of wire below the value of $100.00; others charged, respectively, receiving stolen wire of a value above $100.00 and receiving such wire of a value less than $100.00.

The offenses are alleged to have occurred between April and July of 1956; time and value are specified in each count. Generally, both larceny and receiving are charged as to each lot of wire involved. Thomas moved seasonably for dismissal of the indictment because the seventeen counts alleged “separate and distinct offenses as of different' dates, some of those alleged amounting to felonies and others alleged amounting to misdemeanors * * *.” In the alternative, he moved that the State be required to elect the count on which it would try him. The court denied the motion.

At the end of the testimony the State entered a nolle prosequi to each of the counts that charged larceny, and the case went to the jury on the counts that charged receiving stolen goods. After conviction, a motion for a new trial was filed, relying on the claim that the chief prosecuting witness, who had stolen the goods and sold them to Thomas, was, at the time of the trial, confined to Patuxent Institution as a defective delinquent and, therefore, “the testimony of the said prosecuting witness would be null and void and inadmissible * * *.” The trial judge considered a letter from the Director of Patuxent Institution, which said that the witness had a low intelligence quotient, poor judgment, and a childish and limited mentality, but which also said that according to the law of Maryland “he would be considered a responsible agent and accordingly would be considered competent to testify in court.” In his opinion, the court, recalling the trial, said of the witness: “it was obvious that he was a man of small mentality” and added that during none of his rather extensive testimony “did it occur to this Court that he was suffering from any mental disease and it apparently did not occur to defense counsel.” He concluded that “The jury listened to ⁵⁶¹ that testimony and could evaluate it” and that “There was other testimony