Wersten v. State

Prescott, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Donald J. Wersten was convicted, in the Criminal Court of Baltimore, of breaking and entering with intent to commit grand larceny and committing grand larceny. He was sentenced to twelve years’ confinement, and has appealed. Appellant’s initial assignment of error is a claim that the State failed to prove ownership of the property broken into, and that stolen, as laid in the indictment.

Ownership of both was alleged to be in one Chris Neumeister in the indictment. Proof of ownership in the testimony was indeed scant and meager. The witness Adam Kimmel was asked if he were connected with the “Eichenkranz Society.” He replied he was “treasurer of the corporation.” He was then asked if he were familiar with “the man by the name of Mr. Chris Neumeister.” He replied that he was. When asked if Neumeister were connected with the Eichenkranz Society, he said: “He is our manager.” Kimmel then went on to state that he left “these premises” (presumably the premises broken into) about 1:30 a.m. on the morning before the burglary and he thought “it” was closed shortly thereafter.

When he returned two days later, the safe, containing around $1,000 and some papers, was missing “from the Eichenkranz Society.” He thought the safe was removed through “the south entrance to our restaurant.” He identified some papers that had been in the safe as belonging to “the Eichenkranz Society.” This is all the evidence of ownership contained in the record extract. We have stated that an allegation of the ownership of the property alleged to have been stolen is a necessary requisite in a larceny indictment (and the same applies to the property alleged to have been broken into in a count that charges statutory burglary); and proof of ownership as laid in the indictment is an essential factor to justify a conviction. Richardson v. State, 221 Md. 85 , 156 A. 2d 436 ; State v. King, 95 Md. ²²⁹ 125, 51 A. 1102 , Sippio v. state, 227 Md. 449 , 177 A. 2d 261 . We have recognized, of course, that in a prosecution for larceny, it is generally held that an allegation of the ownership of stolen goods is supported by proof of any legal interest or special property in the goods.

Richardson v. State, supra, and authorities cited