- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
LITTLE v. STATE
Case Summary: Little v. State
Factual and Procedural Background
Leonard Little was indicted in Allegany County, along with Edward Capel and Thomas Neff, for accepting bets on horse races and for maintaining premises for that purpose. The case was removed to Washington County and a severance was granted. A jury found Little guilty of the charged offenses. He appealed, challenging primarily the admissibility of testimony given by two members of the State Police as to matters they observed and certain statements made to them, and arguing that, if that testimony was inadmissible, the remaining evidence was insufficient to support the conviction.
Relevant investigative facts proven at trial: on August 29 two State Police sergeants in plain clothes went to Little's public poolroom. They asked Edward Capel about placing a $7 bet on a horse; Capel wrote the bet on a slip, took the $7, went to the back of the room where Little and others stood and upon returning said, "I got it up." The officers then left. The following day the officers returned, asked for their money back, and Capel identified the officers to Little by saying, "These are the men." Little then handed $7 to one of the officers. The officers also asked about placing another bet; Little directed them to Thomas Neff, and the officers observed Neff accept a $2 bet from another man and make a notation on a slip. This evidence was introduced over objection.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the testimony of the two State Police officers describing what they saw and heard in the poolroom was admissible.
- Whether the Police and Fire Commissioner of Cumberland had legal authority to request the detailing of State Police under Code (1951), Art. 88B, § 23 and § 22 (i.e., the meaning of the words "chief police officer").
- Whether the statement by Capel, "I got it up," was hearsay or admissible as part of the res gestae.
- If the officers' testimony was inadmissible, whether the remaining evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The court erred in ruling that John W. Long, the Police and Fire Commissioner of Cumberland, had legal authority to request State Police assistance and that the State Police were legally detailed and lawfully on Little's premises when they obtained the contested evidence.
- The officers' testimony recounting Capel's statement "I got it up" was hearsay, made out of the presence of the accused, and therefore inadmissible.
- If that testimony was excluded, the remaining evidence was insufficient to convict Little of accepting bets or maintaining premises for betting.
Appellee's Arguments (as reflected in the opinion)
- The phrase "chief police officer" in Art. 88B should be read to mean the ranking official of a local police department regardless of title, and the Police and Fire Commissioner of Cumberland (John W. Long) was such a ranking official; thus his request validly authorized the State Police detail.
- Even if the detailing exceeded the Superintendent's legal power and the officers were not deputized to perform police duties, the officers, as members of the general public, had a legal right to enter a public poolroom and to testify as to what they saw and heard there.
- The statement "I got it up" was part of the res gestae and admissible as a verbal act indicating acceptance of a bet; identification of participants was unnecessary for that limited purpose. Additional evidence (the refund of money, referral to Neff, and observation of bets being taken) was sufficient to show Little's knowledge and participation.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Curreri v. State, 199 Md. 54, 55 | Persons acting as members of the general public have a legal right to enter public places and may testify to what they saw and heard there. | Used to support admissibility of State Police officers' testimony even if their detailing was beyond legal authority, because they could testify as members of the public who had lawfully entered the poolroom. |
| White v. State, 204 Md. 442, 104 A.2d 810 | The res gestae doctrine may render admissible statements and verbal acts connected with the transaction charged. | Applied to hold Capel's statement "I got it up" admissible as part of the res gestae in a prosecution for maintaining premises for gambling. |
| Alexander v. State, 198 Md. 395 | Res gestae and evidentiary principles relating to acts of taking bets and proving proprietor knowledge; precedents on sufficiency of evidence to show proprietor participation or knowledge. | Cited both for allowing res gestae admission and for the proposition that convictions have been sustained on less evidence of a proprietor's knowledge or participation. |
| Courtney v. State, 187 Md. 1 | Res gestae and related evidentiary rules concerning admissions and spontaneous declarations in the course of criminal acts. | Applied to support admission of the verbal act ("I got it up") as part of the transaction charged. |
| Shelton v. State, 198 Md. 405, 412 | Precedent that convictions can be sustained on limited evidence of a proprietor's knowledge or participation in gambling activities on premises. | Relied upon to show that the evidence here (refund of money, referral to Neff, observation of bets) was legally sufficient to support conviction. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court first addressed the challenge to the ruling that John W. Long, the Police and Fire Commissioner of Cumberland, had authority to request State Police assistance. It examined Code (1951), Art. 88B, § 23 (which restricts State Police action within municipalities that maintain police forces except, inter alia, when requested by the chief executive officer or its chief police officer) and § 22 (authorizing the Superintendent to assist on request of the chief executive officer or chief police officer of any local government unit). The Cumberland charter provisions show a Police and Fire Commissioner "having in his special charge the enforcement of all police regulations" and a Chief of Police designated as the "chief police officer of the said City." The court concluded that the statutory phrase "chief police officer" refers to the ranking official of a local police department regardless of title. Because the Chief of Police testified that Long was his "immediate superior" and there was testimony of Long's request and the Superintendent's compliance, the court held the trial court's instruction on the officers' lawful detailing was correct.
The court then considered the alternative: that even if detailing the State Police to assist in Cumberland had exceeded the Superintendent's legal authority, admissibility of the officers' testimony would not be defeated. Citing Curreri v. State, the court reasoned that the officers, as members of the general public, had the right to enter a public poolroom and could testify to what they observed and heard there.
On the hearsay objection to Capel's statement "I got it up," the court held the statement was part of the res gestae. The court characterized the statement as indicating acceptance of the offer to bet — a verbal act of taking a bet — which was germane to the charge of maintaining premises for gambling. For that limited purpose, identification of the participants was unnecessary. The court cited White v. State, Alexander v. State, and Courtney v. State in support.
Finally, the court analyzed sufficiency of evidence. It found that the testimony Little refunded the money the next day demonstrated his knowledge of and participation in the prior transaction. Further, Little's direction of the officers to Neff and the officers' observation of Neff accepting bets and making notations supported the conclusion that bets were being made on the premises and that Little knew of this. The court noted that convictions have been sustained on far less evidence of a proprietor's knowledge or participation, citing Shelton v. State and Alexander v. State. On this basis the court concluded the evidence was legally sufficient to support the conviction.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The judgment of conviction was affirmed (judgment affirmed, with costs).
Implications:
- The court interpreted the phrase "chief police officer" in Code (1951), Art. 88B, §§ 22 and 23, to mean the ranking official of a local police department regardless of the official's formal title; therefore the Police and Fire Commissioner of Cumberland could request State Police assistance where he had special charge of enforcement of police regulations and was the immediate superior of the Chief of Police.
- The court held that State Police officers, even if their detailing to assist municipal police were beyond legal power, may nonetheless testify as members of the general public about conduct observed in a public place.
- The court held that the statement "I got it up," made by a third party in the course of the transaction, was admissible as part of the res gestae for the limited purpose of proving that a bet had been taken; identification of participants was unnecessary for that purpose.
- The direct consequence for the parties is that Little's conviction was upheld; the opinion applied existing evidentiary principles and statutory interpretation rather than announcing a novel broad rule beyond the matters decided.
STATE POLICE — Assisting Local Government Units — Words "chief police officer" in Code (1951), Art. 88B, Authorizing Detail of, Mean Ranking Official of Local Police Regardless of Title. The words "chief police officer" in Sec. 23 (3), Art. 88B, Code (1951), prohibiting the State Police from acting within an incorporated municipality which maintains a police force except when requested to act by the chief executive officer or its chief police officer, and in Sec. 22, providing that the Superintendent of State Police may on the request of the chief executive officer or the chief police officer of any local government unit assist such officer in the investigation of crime, etc., refer to the ranking official of a local police department regardless of title. Therefore, the Police and Fire Commissioner of Cumberland, a councilman having in special charge the enforcement of all police regulations, could make such a request and the Superintendent of State Police could grant it even though the Charter of Cumberland provided for a Police Department, to be composed of a "Chief of Police" and subordinate assistants, where the Chief of Police testified that the Police and Fire Commissioner was his "immediate superior". pp. 521-522
GAMBLING — Accepting Bets On Horse Races and Maintaining Premises for, In Public Poolroom In City — State Police, As Members of Public, May Enter and Testify As To What They Saw and Heard There. State Police, even though illegally authorized to assist municipal police, had, as members of the general public, a legal right to enter a public pool-room and could testify as to betting on horse races which they saw or heard there. p. 522
GAMBLING — Maintaining Premises for Accepting Bets — Evidence — Statement By One Thereon Other Than Defendant That He Had Up Previously Tendered Bet, Admissible As Part of Res Gestae. In a prosecution for accepting bets on horse races and maintaining premises for such purpose, officers testified that, after entering the premises, they asked one "Capel" (not the defendant) about placing a bet of $7.00 on a horse. He wrote the bet on a slip of paper, took the $7, went to the back of the room where the proprietor-defendant and others were standing and, when he returned, said "I got it up". Defendant objected to the admission of the testimony as to the statement, "I got it up." as hearsay, made out of the presence of the accused, but it was held to be part of the res gestae. The verbal act of taking a bet, with or without the knowledge of the defendant, was germane to the charge of maintaining premises for gambling. For this limited purpose, it was unnecessary to identify the participants. Other evidence was held legally sufficient to show that the defendant had knowledge of the bet and of the fact that bets were being taken on his premises. pp. 522-523
Decided May 24, 1954.
HENDERSON, J., delivered the opinion of the Court.
This appeal is from a judgment and sentence upon the verdict of a jury finding the appellant guilty of accepting bets on horse races and maintaining premises for such purpose. The principal questions raised are as to the correctness of the court's rulings as to the admissibility of the testimony of two members of the State Police Force as to matters observed by them and certain statements made to them. If this testimony was inadmissible, as contended, it is further urged that the remaining evidence was insufficient to convict.
Leonard Little was indicted in Allegany County along with one Edward Capel and Thomas Neff. The case was removed to Washington County and a severance granted. The record shows that the City of Cumberland is a duly incorporated municipality maintaining a police department of its own and having an executive officer called a mayor, a police and fire commissioner, and a chief of police. The testimony shows that on April 25, 1952, John M. Long, the Commissioner of Police of Cumberland, wrote a letter to Col. Munshower, the Superintendent of State Police, requesting that two State Police officers in plain clothes be detailed to make a certain investigation of gambling in Cumberland. The request was granted, and Sergeants Jackson and Smith were assigned to the work in Cumberland. They went to the poolroom operated by Little on the evening of August 29. Over objection, these officers were permitted to testify that they played several games of pool, and then asked an elderly man, whom they subsequently learned was Edward Capel, about placing a bet on "Ritbred," a horse running that day at Atlantic City. Capel wrote the bet on a slip of paper and accepted $7 from the witnesses. Capel then went to the back of the room, where the proprietor, Little, and other men were standing, and when he returned told them: "I got it up." The witnesses then left the premises. The next day they returned to the pool-room, where they talked to Capel and Little. They asked for their money back, as it appeared that the horse they had bet on had been scratched. Capel said to Little, "These are the men." Little pulled a roll of bills from his pocket and handed $7 to one of the witnesses. The witnesses further testified they then asked Little about placing a bet on "Native Dancer." Little told them to "see that man at the other end of the counter", pointing to him. This man was Thomas Neff. While waiting their turn, they saw Neff accept a bet from another man, but Neff declined to accept a bet they offered. This is all the pertinent testimony relating to the offense charged.
The appellant contends that the court erred in instructing the jury that John W. Long, the Police and Fire Commissioner of Cumberland, had legal authority to request the detailing of State Police to the investigation, and that they were legally detailed and legally on the premises of Little at the time they obtained the evidence referred to. We think the ruling was correct. Code (1951), Art. 88B, § 23, provides that the State Police shall not act within the limits of any incorporated municipality which maintains a police force, except under specified conditions, the only one here applicable being "(3) when requested to act by the chief executive officer of the municipality in question or its chief police officer, * * *."
Section 22 provides that the Superintendent of State Police "may on the request of the chief executive officer or the chief police officer of any local government unit in the State assist such officer in the investigation of the circumstances of any crime, and in the identification, apprehension, and conviction of the perpetrator or perpetrators thereof, * * *." The Charter of Cumberland (1950 ed.) § 18 vests control and supervision of all city departments in the Mayor and City Council, and provides for the designation of one councilman as Police and Fire Commissioner, having in his special charge the enforcement of all police regulations. § 36(a) calls for the establishment of a Police Department, to be composed of a "Chief of Police" and subordinate officers. § 36 (m) sets forth the duties of the Chief of Police and states that he shall be the "chief police officer of the said City". Despite the verbal identity of the phrase "chief police officer" as used in the public general law and in the charter, we think that the phrase in Article 88B refers to the ranking official of a local police department regardless of title. While Robert E. Flynn, the Cumberland Chief of Police, testified that he did not make any request, and it is conceded that the Mayor did not, he also testified that Mr. Long was his "immediate superior". There was testimony of a request by Mr. Long and of compliance by Col. Munshower.
But even if the detailing of these officers to the investigation in Cumberland was beyond the legal power of the Superintendent and they were not authorized or deputized to perform police duties there, it would not follow that their testimony was inadmissible. As members of the general public they had a legal right to enter the pool-room to which the public was invited and could testify to what they saw and heard there. Curreri v. State, 199 Md. 54, 55 and cases cited.
The appellant contends that the officers' testimony as to Capel's statement to them, "I got it up", is hearsay, made out of the presence of the accused, and hence inadmissible. We think, however, that it was part of the res gestae. The statement did not purport to repeat anything said to Capel by Little, or even to implicate him directly in the transaction. It merely indicated an acceptance of their offer by Capel, either on his own account or for an undisclosed principal. The verbal act of taking a bet, with or without the knowledge or consent of Little, was germane to the charge of maintaining premises for gambling. For this limited purpose it was unnecessary to identify the participants. White v. State, 204 Md. 442, 104 A.2d 810; Alexander v. State, 198 Md. 395; Courtney v. State, 187 Md. 1.
The testimony that Little refunded the money bet, on the following day, is legally sufficient to show that he had knowledge of the previous transaction and personally participated in it. Likewise, the testimony that Little then referred them to Neff, in connection with another proposed bet, and that they saw Neff accept $2 from another man and make notations on a slip, would indicate that bets were being made on the premises and that Little had knowledge of it. Convictions have been sustained on far less evidence of knowledge or participation by a proprietor. Shelton v. State, 198 Md. 405, 412; Alexander v. State, supra.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
Alert