Williams v. State

Anderson, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Appellant, James Everett Williams, was convicted in the Criminal Court of Baltimore by the court, sitting without a jury, of malicious destruction of property and larceny of goods over the value of one hundred dollars. He received concurrent sentences of one year and eight years in the Maryland House of Correction. The sole contention raised on this appeal is that the evidence was not sufficient to sustain the conviction.

On October 22, 1966, at approximately 10:00 a.m., Jack Brown, a partner in the Bonded Loan Company, 4 N. Eutaw Street, Baltimore, Maryland, and his friend Sidney Newburg observed, from inside the shop, the breaking of the display window and a person, later identified as John Smith, Jr., reach in the window and take therefrom a tray of rings. Mr. Brown and his friend pursued Smith. During the chase, about a block and ⁶⁰ one half from the shop, Brown and Newburg observed that the appellant was also running in front of Smith. The police joined in the pursuit and apprehended Smith and the appellant.

Throughout the pursuit, appellant remained in front of Smith. Neither was observed carrying anything, nor was there direct physical contact between them while in flight. When apprehended, appellant and Smith were not together. Appellant was never observed by anyone at the scene of the crime when the display window was broken.

At the trial the appellant took the stand but Smith did not. Appellant’s testimony set forth a denial of participation in or knowledge of the offense. He stated that he was an escapee from the Maryland House of Correction and was seeking assistance from an attorney. He testified he was returning from a visit to that attorney’s office when he observed Smith in flight and that he then began running for fear of being apprehended as an escapee.

Nothing was found on the appellant when apprehended which would connect him with the offense, nor was there evidence to establish a connection or relation between Smith and the appellant. Our juridical history has long reflected the basic premise that “[ejveryone accused of crime is presumed to be innocent; and, in order to justify a finding of guilt, it is incumbent upon the State affirmatively to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” Johnson v. State, 227 Md. 159, 163, 175 A. 2d 580 (1961). The rule regarding the sufficiency of the evidence was noted in Spencer v. State, 1 Md. App. 264, 267 , 229 A. 2d 151 (1967) quoting Vincent v. State, 220 Md. 232 , 151 A. 2d 898 (1959): “In every criminal case, evidence, to meet the test of legal sufficiency, must show directly, or support a rational inference of, the facts required to be proved; and the facts must be established, or the inference supported, beyond a reasonable doubt or to a moral certainty, or a reasonable doubt of an opposite fact must be created.” Flight from the scene of a crime is