Grimes v. State

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Grimes v. State

203 A.2d 418, 236 Md. 613, 1964 Md. LEXIS 926

CourtCourt of Appeals of Maryland

DecidedSeptember 25, 1964

DocketNo. 23

StatusPublished

This text of 203 A.2d 418 (Grimes v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Maryland primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Grimes v. State, 203 A.2d 418, 236 Md. 613, 1964 Md. LEXIS 926 (Md. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The appellant was acquitted of the larceny of an automobile and certain goods therein, but convicted of receiving stolen goods (a camera worth less than $100) and unauthorized use of the automobile. He contends that the court erred in permitting an officer to identify a camera recovered on a pawn ticket found on the appellant. Both the camera and the ticket [614]*614were put in evidence without objection. The camera was also identified by the owner. We find no error here. The officer testified that he received the pawned camera from the broker on presentation of the ticket. It was not hearsay for him to identify it in court.

The contentions that there was insufficient evidence to show that the camera (left in the stolen automobile) was stolen, or that the appellant (seen in the stolen automobile and later apprehended) was not a receiver, are without merit. There is likewise no merit in the contention that there was insufficient evidence to prove unauthorized use.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

The appellant was acquitted of the larceny of an automobile and certain goods therein, but convicted of receiving stolen goods (a camera worth less than $100) and unauthorized use of the automobile. He contends that the court erred in permitting an officer to identify a camera recovered on a pawn ticket found on the appellant. Both the camera and the ticket [614]*614were put in evidence without objection. The camera was also identified by the owner. We find no error here. The officer testified that he received the pawned camera from the broker on presentation of the ticket. It was not hearsay for him to identify it in court.

The contentions that there was insufficient evidence to show that the camera (left in the stolen automobile) was stolen, or that the appellant (seen in the stolen automobile and later apprehended) was not a receiver, are without merit. There is likewise no merit in the contention that there was insufficient evidence to prove unauthorized use.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

203 A.2d 418, 236 Md. 613, 1964 Md. LEXIS 926, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grimes-v-state-md-1964.