delivered the opinion of the Court.
Jоseph Curreri was tried and convicted of bookmaking in Baltimore City in the rear of 3057 West Nоrth Avenue, at its intersection with Rosedale Street. Sergeant Mcenna, with other offiсers, went there on April 6, 1951, armed with a search warrant which was subsequently ruled invalid by the trial сourt. He testified that on the Rosedale Street side there is an outdoor fruit stand covered by an awning; behind the stand is “one room that belongs to the fruit stand”, containing some produce. There is no doorway from the room into any other part of the housе. People enter the room to purchase produce. He entered thе room behind the stand and saw the defendant sitting on a stool before a table on whiсh a radio was giving race results. On the table were six bet slips and a scratch sheet. The defendant attempted to stuff the slips into a slot in the radio, but McKenna grabbed them. On thе slips were the names of horses running that day. These papers were offered in evidence over the defendant’s objection.
We find no error in the court’s ruling. The offiсers had as much right to enter the store as any other member of the public. Machen, Search and Seizure (1950) page 5;
Silverstein v. State,
Sergeant McKenna also testified that he saw a man in the rear of the room, writing on a slip of paper the names of two horses. This man, William Thomas, then approached the defendant and tried to make a bet, but McKenna took it. Two other men in the store told MсKenna, in the defendant’s presence, that they had made bets that day with Curreri. McKennа also testified that a woman entered the store with a bet slip and some money in hеr hand. Curreri admitted to McKenna that he was taking bets, but said his brother Samuel, who ran the fruit stand, had no interest in the bookmaking. He said Sam had gone to the races that day, leaving аn old man in charge of the fruit stand. Sam’s truck was parked at the curb; the police searched it in the presence of the defendant and found a paper bag containing forty-three slips with race bets. The defendant said they were his bets; he put them in there himself. These slips were offered in evidence over objection.
The short аnswer to this objection is that the defendant claimed no interest in the truck, and had no stаnding to object to its search. The search warrant had alleged that the truck was titled in the name of Samuel and Catherine Curreri. It was used in connection with the fruit business. Since thе appellant claimed no interest in the truck, he could not object to its seаrch. Cf.
Lambert v. State,
The appellant contends that it was error to admit the statements of the three men present at the time of the raid; that they had made bets with Curreri. The State cоntends that these statements were admissible
*57
because of the failure of the accused to deny them, citing
2 Wharton, Criminal Evidence
(11th ed.) section 656. We had occasion tо discuss this point at some length in
Barber v. State,
Judgment affirmed, with costs.