28 A.3d 797
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2011Background
- Burglary and theft occurred at Eisenrauch/Batchellor residence while they were away (Apr 18–20, 2009).
- Molter, a longtime friend, was observed in the vicinity during the window of opportunity.
- Recovered items from Molter’s car trunk seven–nine days later matched items described by victims.
- Appellant challenged only the burglary element; theft was conceded.
- Defense did not explain how stolen items ended up in Molter’s possession; evidence supported an inference of guilt.
- Trial court ruled on impeachment, mistrial, and demonstration issues, none of which overturned the verdict on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legal sufficiency of burglary proof | Molter argues no evidence tied him to the burglary. | State contends unexplained possession plus corroborating facts support burglary. | Burglary supported by inferred guilt from possession plus corpus delicti evidence. |
| Impeachment with PBJ status | Molter argues PBJ no longer constitutes a conviction for 5-609 impeachment. | State contends PBJ not a conviction; still admissible if properly used under 5-608. | PBJ not a conviction; 5-609 inapplicable; 5-608 balancing exercised against impeachment. |
| Mistrial denial | Molter claims curative measures insufficient; mistrial warranted. | State asserts no substantial prejudice; curative instruction given. | No abuse of discretion; mistrial not warranted. |
| Plain error in prosecutor’s remarks | Molter asserts improper comments affected fairness. | State notes lack of preservation; plain error not shown. | Preservation required; no plain error noticed. |
| Denied demonstration in closing | Molter contends denial prevented effective defense. | State argues harmless error; no prejudice from demonstration denial. | Harmful effect not shown; any error, if present, harmless beyond doubt. |
Key Cases Cited
- Debinski v. State, 194 Md. 355 (1950) (recent possession evidence supports inference of theft)
- Brewer v. Mele, 267 Md. 437 (1972) (possession of recently stolen goods permits inference of thief; burglary if theft tied to breaking)
- Anglin v. State, 244 Md. 652 (1966) (burglary and theft evidenced by possession of recently stolen goods)
- Grant v. State, 318 Md. 672 (1990) (unexplained possession plus breaking supports burglary/theft inference)
- Ogburn v. State, 71 Md. App. 496 (1987) (trial court discretion in Rule 5-608 balancing; not abuse for refusing bad-act inquiry)
- Samuels v. State, 54 Md. App. 486 (1983) (unexplained possession supports inference tying thief to burglary/theft)
- Butz v. State, 221 Md. 68 (1959) (possession within time frame can be 'recent' for inference)
- Ponder v. State, 227 Md. 570 (1962) (possession distance acceptable; inference remains a fact issue)