Reed v. State

9 Citing cases

  1. Horsman v. State

    82 Md. App. 99 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1990)   Cited 8 times
    Sentencing is a consequence of a guilty plea, not a consequence of the election to waive a jury trial

    Any person, his aiders, abettors and counsellors, who shall be convicted of the crime of breaking a dwelling house in the daytime with intent to commit murder or felony therein, or with intent to steal, take or carry away the personal goods of another of any value therefrom, shall be guilty of a felony, and upon conviction thereof, shall be sentenced to the penitentiary for not more than ten years. He asserts that Reed v. State, 7 Md. App. 200, 253 A.2d 774 (1969), supports his position. In Reed the defendant was convicted after a nonjury trial of attempted housebreaking with intent to steal.

  2. Reed v. State

    316 Md. 521 (Md. 1989)   Cited 15 times

    These factors lead us to conclude that there was insufficient evidence for the trial judge to find that Kevin Reed entered the apartment building with the intent to commit a crime. In Reed v. State, 7 Md. App. 200, 253 A.2d 774 (1969), the Court of Special Appeals reversed a conviction because there was insufficient evidence of intent to warrant the conclusion that the defendant had attempted to enter a home "with the intent to steal goods therefrom." 7 Md. App. at 204, 253 A.2d at 776.

  3. Warren v. State

    29 Md. App. 560 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1976)   Cited 20 times
    Affirming all convictions

    "An attempt to commit a crime is an act done in pursuance of a criminal intent falling short of the actual commission of the crime, coupled, at least, with the apparent ability to commit the crime intended. Reed v. State, 7 Md. App. 200; Makins v. State, 6 Md. App. 466; Boone v. State, 2 Md. App. 80. So attempted robbery may be predicated upon a finding of intent to steal goods from the person of another by violence but without the consummation of the larceny. See Thompson v. State, 5 Md. App. 191.

  4. Lightfoot v. State

    278 Md. 231 (Md. 1976)   Cited 31 times
    In Lightfoot, the Maryland Court of Appeals dealt with a defendant who argued that he could not be convicted of attempted armed robbery because the "evidence clearly establish[ed] a consummated armed robbery."

    The Court of Special Appeals has similarly stated in the past that non-consummation of the crime is an element of a criminal attempt. Maloney v. State, 17 Md. App. 609, 636, 304 A.2d 260 (1973); McDuffie v. State, 12 Md. App. 264, 266, 278 A.2d 307 (1971); Wiggins v. State, 8 Md. App. 598, 604, 261 A.2d 503 (1970); Reed v. State, 7 Md. App. 200, 203, 253 A.2d 774 (1969); Price v. State, 3 Md. App. 155, 159, 238 A.2d 275 (1968); Tender v. State, 2 Md. App. 692, 698, 237 A.2d 65 (1968); Boone v. State, 2 Md. App. 80, 114, 233 A.2d 476 (1967). The better view, we believe, is the one adopted by the Court of Special Appeals in the instant case, by the majority of other jurisdictions, and by Professor Perkins, that failure to consummate the crime is not an indispensable element of criminal attempt.

  5. State v. Murphy

    107 R.I. 737 (R.I. 1970)   Cited 10 times

    From such evidence it was reasonable to infer, as the jury and the trial justice obviously did, that defendant entered the building with intent to commit larceny therein. As the court said in Reed v. State, 7 Md. App. 200, 203-04, 253 A.2d 774, 776: "* * * finding the requisite intent to steal is never a precise process, for intention is subjective and it must therefore be inferred from the circumstances of the case, if it is found at all.

  6. In re Lakeysha P

    665 A.2d 264 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1995)   Cited 16 times
    Interpreting nearly identical predecessor statute

    Having been convicted of committing robbery with a deadly weapon, the appellants cannot be found to have failed to commit it, which is a necessary ingredient in the proof of the attempt. 2 Md. App. at 698, 237 A.2d at 69 (Citations omitted) (Emphasis supplied); see also Price v. State, 3 Md. App. 155, 159, 238 A.2d 275, 277 (1968) ("Having been convicted of committing robbery with a deadly weapon, the appellants cannot be found to have failed to have commit it, which is a necessary ingredient in the proof of attempt"); Reed v. State, 7 Md. App. 200, 203, 253 A.2d 774, 776 (1969) ("An attempt to commit a crime consists of an intention to commit it, the performance of some act towards its commission and the failure to consummate the offense"); Wiggins v. State, 8 Md. App. 598, 604, 261 A.2d 503, 507 (1970) ("An attempt to commit a crime is an act done in pursuance of a criminal intent falling short of the actual commission of the crime"). In McDuffie v. State, 12 Md. App. 264, 278 A.2d 307 (1971), the pedigree continued to grow:

  7. Middleton v. State

    67 Md. App. 159 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1986)   Cited 16 times
    In Middleton, we relied upon Wayte v. U.S., 470 U.S. 598, 105 S.Ct. 1524, 84 L.Ed.2d 547 (1985), in which the Supreme Court held that in order to establish an equal protection violation, a defendant must show that the government's system of prosecuting only certain males who failed to register with the Selective Service was motivated by a discriminatory purpose, as well as had a discriminatory effect.

    The court denied the motion. Appellant contends, relying on Felkner v. State, 218 Md. 300, 307, 146 A.2d 424 (1958) and Reed v. State, 7 Md. App. 200, 204, 253 A.2d 774 (1969), that the State did not produce sufficient evidence from which the jury could find an intent to steal. Aside from the noting that the proof in this case was, at most, that a "mere breaking" had occurred, without injury, appellant does not attempt to argue the ground advanced by counsel below, i.e., that the proof of a completed act prohibits conviction of an attempt to commit that act.

  8. State v. Elliott

    88 N.M. 187 (N.M. Ct. App. 1975)   Cited 15 times
    Explaining that "[t]he gravamen of the offense of burglary is the intent with which the [residence] is entered" and that evidence of an intent formed after the entry does not prove a burglary

    236 N.E.2d at 571. See also, Easton v. State, 248 Ind. 338, 228 N.E.2d 6 (1967); Reed v. State, 7 Md. App. 200, 253 A.2d 774 (1969); State v. Rood, 11 Ariz. App. 102, 462 P.2d 399 (Ct.App. 1969); Hutton v. People, 177 Colo. 448, 494 P.2d 822 (1972). The convictions are reversed and defendant is discharged.

  9. Wiggins v. State

    261 A.2d 503 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1970)   Cited 24 times

    An attempt to commit a crime is an act done in pursuance of a criminal intent falling short of the actual commission of the crime, coupled, at least, with the apparent ability to commit the crime intended. Reed v. State, 7 Md. App. 200; Makins v. State, 6 Md. App. 466; Boone v. State, 2 Md. App. 80. So attempted robbery may be predicated upon a finding of intent to steal goods from the person of another by violence but without the consummation of the larceny. See Thompson v. State, 5 Md. App. 191.