Summary
In Clark v. State, 236 Md. 648, 207 A.2d 94 (1964), the Court held that under the circumstances voluntary drunkenness was not a valid defense to the charge of breaking and entering with intent to steal, noting that the evidence tended to show that the defendant was "in possession of his faculties."
Summary of this case from Shell v. StateOpinion
[No. 66, September Term, 1964.]
Decided December 4, 1964.
CRIMINAL LAW — Breaking And Entering With Intent To Steal Goods Less Than $100 — Voluntary Drunkenness Not A Valid Defense — Evidence Found Sufficient To Convict — Allegation Of Denial Of Jury Trial Disproved By Record. pp. 648-649
S.K.S.
Decided December 4, 1964.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Calvert County (GRAY, JR., J.).
Steven Eugene Clark was convicted in a non-jury trial of breaking and entering a walk-in ice box with intent to steal goods of a value of less than $100.00, and from the judgment entered thereon, he appealed.
Affirmed.
Submitted to HENDERSON, C.J., and HAMMOND, HORNEY, SYBERT and OPPENHEIMER, JJ.
Submitted on brief by J. Wilmer Johnson, for the appellant.
Submitted on brief by Thomas B. Finan, Attorney General, Robert F. Sweeney, Assistant Attorney General, and Allen S. Handen, State's Attorney for Calvert County, for the appellee.
Convicted in a non-jury trial of breaking and entering a walk-in ice box with intent to steal goods of a value less than $100, and sentenced to eighteen months, the appellant contends that excessive drinking had rendered him incapable of forming the requisite intent, and that the evidence was insufficient. There is no merit in either contention. Voluntary drunkenness is not a valid defense. Saldiveri v. State, 217 Md. 412. Moreover, the testimony of all the eye witnesses was to the effect that he appeared to be in possession of his faculties. He was observed breaking the lock on the box, with an object in his hand. The fact that no tool was found is not controlling. Nor is it controlling that nothing was taken after he entered the box and before his flight and arrest. His allegation that he was denied a jury trial is disproved by the record.
Judgment affirmed.