Opinion ID: 2334331
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Allen v. State

Text: Derek Darnell Allen was tried before a jury in the Circuit Court for Talbot County on a seven count information charging storehouse breaking (Art. 27, § 32), storehouse breaking and stealing (Art. 27, § 33), storehouse breaking and entering (Art. 27, § 31B), malicious destruction of property (Art. 27, § 111), trespassing on school property (Code (1978, 1989 Repl.Vol.), § 26-102(d)(1) of the Education Article), willfully damaging school property (§ 26-102(d)(3) of the Education Article), and theft of $300 or more (Art. 27, §§ 340-344). The charges were based on the theft of a twelve-year-old color television set, a seven-year-old tape recorder, a cassette player and a set of headphones from a public school in Talbot County. According to a school official, the original cost of the television was $318, the tape recorder $66, the cassette player $52, and the headphones $116. At trial, the testimony was inconsistent in regard to the extent of Allen's involvement. In addition, the defendant took the position that the value of the goods taken was less than $300. As previously mentioned, the defendant was expressly charged with theft over $300, but he was not expressly charged with theft under $300. [1] After the evidentiary phase of the trial, during a discussion concerning jury instructions and the jury verdict sheet, a question arose concerning an instruction on theft under $300. The prosecuting attorney urged that the court instruct on, and that the verdict sheet contain a choice for, theft under $300 on the theory that it is a lesser included offense. He argued: Your Honor, as I stated in Chambers I  the law of theft is if the jury is able to find that a theft was committed, and the value of the items stolen was $300 or more, then they can find the defendant guilty of felony theft. If however, they find that the State did not [meet] its burden on the value of the items that were stolen, but they believe all the other elements of the crime of theft occurred, namely, that the defendant stole something, then they can find the defendant guilty of theft under $300. It is a lesser included offense of the  of the offense of theft. The defense attorney objected, saying: And second of all, the jury verdict sheet as proffered provides  although the charging document only charged theft over $300, it provides a means by which they could find the defendant guilty of theft under $300, and I would object to that. If we weren't charged with theft under, I don't think it should be on the verdict sheet. The trial court, agreeing with the prosecution, submitted to the jury the option of convicting Allen of theft under $300. The jury acquitted Allen of storehouse breaking and stealing, acquitted him of theft over $300, and acquitted him of malicious destruction of property. The jury convicted Allen of theft under $300. The jurors were unable to agree as to the remaining charges, and those charges were subsequently nolle prossed. Allen was sentenced to the maximum eighteen months imprisonment on the conviction of theft under $300. The judgment was affirmed by the Court of Special Appeals in an unreported opinion. Allen filed in this Court a petition for a writ of certiorari, arguing that the case presented the identical issue as the Hagans case, namely whether the trial court can send a lesser included offense to the jury if that offense is not charged in the charging document. (Petition, p. 3). We granted the petition.