Opinion
[No. 303, September Term, 1964.]
Decided May 6, 1965.
CRIMINAL LAW — Breaking And Entering And Larceny — Court, Assuming Without Deciding That One Witness Was An Accomplice, Found Ample Corroborative Testimony To Support Conviction. p. 629
S.K.S.
Decided May 6, 1965.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County (MICHAELSON, J.).
James Edward Ewell was convicted of breaking and entering and larceny, and from the judgment entered thereon, he appeals.
Judgment and sentence affirmed.
The cause was argued before PRESCOTT, C.J., and HAMMOND, HORNEY, SYBERT and OPPENHEIMER, JJ.
W. Harvey Beardmore for appellant.
Miss Dickee M. Howard, Special Attorney, with whom were Thomas B. Finan, Attorney General, Robert F. Sweeney, Assistant Attorney General, and Marvin H. Anderson, State's Attorney for Anne Arundel County on the brief, for appellee.
Court-appointed counsel has made an earnest and sincere effort to be of assistance to the appellant; but the facts render the appeal hopeless from appellant's side thereof.
He was convicted of breaking and entering and larceny. The only question presented is whether he was convicted on the uncorroborated testimony of accomplices. If we assume, without deciding, that the witness McGowan was an accomplice, there was ample corroborative testimony to support appellant's conviction. The witness Finklestein definitely was not an accomplice, and his testimony, together with that of the other witnesses adduced by the State, was sufficient to support the conviction.
Judgment and sentence affirmed.