From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Irving v. State

Court of Appeals of Maryland
Jan 15, 1963
187 A.2d 313 (Md. 1963)

Opinion

[No. 125, September Term, 1962.]

Decided January 15, 1963.

BURGLARY — Evidence Was Sufficient — Intent To Steal Could Be Inferred From Evidence — Stolen Property Was Found On Appellant's Person. pp. 364-365

H.C.

Decided January 15, 1963.

Appeal from the Criminal Court of Baltimore (MANLEY, J.).

Maurice Irving was convicted, in a trial without a jury, of burglary and from the judgment entered thereon, he appealed.

Judgment affirmed.

Submitted on the brief to BRUNE, C.J., and HAMMOND, PRESCOTT, MARBURY and SYBERT, JJ.

Submitted by Benjamin Foreman for appellant.

Submitted by Thomas B. Finan, Attorney General, Russell R. Reno, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, William J. O'Donnell, State's Attorney, and Joseph G. Koutz, Assistant State's Attorney, for appellee.


After being found guilty of burglary by Judge Manley, sitting without a jury, and being sentenced, the defendant has appealed.

He contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction in that the State failed to prove his intent to steal.

The contention is without merit, being obviously based upon the "nothing to lose" philosophy now so frequently invoked by indigent criminals.

It is well-settled law that in prosecutions for burglary the intent may be inferred from the circumstances. Shipley v. State, 220 Md. 463, 154 A.2d 708; Holtman v. State, 219 Md. 512, 150 A.2d 223; Felkner v. State, 218 Md. 300, 146 A.2d 424; Cooper v. State, 220 Md. 183, 152 A.2d 120. In the instant case, the evidence not only permits an inference of an intent to steal by the appellant, but some of the purloined property was actually found upon his person before he could escape. He, one "Flatfoot," and another man were interrupted at a time when they were ransacking a dwelling. All three ran out of the house, but appellant was caught before he could get away. At first, he denied being in the house but later admitted that he was, and, when he was apprehended, a pair of gloves belonging to the matron of the dwelling fell from his pockets. There was ample evidence of his intent to steal.

Judgment affirmed.


Summaries of

Irving v. State

Court of Appeals of Maryland
Jan 15, 1963
187 A.2d 313 (Md. 1963)
Case details for

Irving v. State

Case Details

Full title:IRVING v . STATE

Court:Court of Appeals of Maryland

Date published: Jan 15, 1963

Citations

187 A.2d 313 (Md. 1963)
187 A.2d 313

Citing Cases

Yopps v. State

Finding the requisite intent to steal is, of course, never a precise process for intent is subjective, and it…

Reed v. State

Of course, finding the requisite intent to steal is never a precise process, for intention is subjective and…