Summary
stating briefly that "criminal intent" is a "necessary element of the offense"
Summary of this case from Ramos v. Attorney Gen. of U.S.Opinion
[No. 250, September Term, 1958.]
Decided June 5, 1959.
CRIMINAL LAW — Larceny Of Use — Of Automobile — Criminal Intent Required — Intention Is A Question Of Fact. In a prosecution for unauthorized use of a motor vehicle under Code (1957), Art. 27, § 349, criminal intent must be shown in order to convict. Intention is a question of fact. In the instant such prosecution, it was held that the trial judge's finding that the defendant possessed criminal intent when using the automobile was fully supported by the evidence and permissible inferences therefrom. p. 183
Decided June 5, 1959.
Appeal from the Criminal Court of Baltimore City (MANLEY, J.).
Carl Ridley was convicted of the unauthorized use of an automobile and he appealed.
Judgment affirmed.
The cause was argued before BRUNE, C.J., and HENDERSON, HAMMOND, PRESCOTT and HORNEY, JJ.
Milton B. Allen, with whom were Brown, Allen Watts on the brief, for appellant.
Shirley Brannock Jones, Assistant Attorney General, with whom were C. Ferdinand Sybert, Attorney General, J. Harold Grady, State's Attorney for Baltimore City, and Frank J. Marcellino, Assistant State's Attorney for Baltimore City, on the brief, for appellee.
The sole question involved in this appeal is whether the appellant, who was convicted of the unauthorized use of a motor vehicle under the Code (1957), Article 27, § 349, possessed criminal intent, a necessary element of the offense, Anello v. State, 201 Md. 164, when he was physically using an automobile belonging to another. The question of his intention, of course, involved a question of fact. We recently quoted from a celebrated statement of Lord Bowen in an action of deceit to the effect that the state of a man's mind is as much a question of fact as the state of his digestion. Tufts v. Poore, 219 Md. 1, 11. We have carefully examined the record; the evidence, and permissible inferences therefrom, fully support the finding of the trial judge that the appellant possessed criminal intent when using the automobile. Anello v. State, supra.
Judgment affirmed.