Opinion ID: 1512722
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Blumberg Theft:

Text: Appellant contends that under the evidence produced the State failed in its efforts to show that he was an accomplice to the criminal acts of Solomon but at most there was only a showing that he had knowledge of the commission of the crime. It is true that to be an accomplice a person must participate in the commission of a crime knowingly, voluntarily, and with common criminal intent with the principal offender, or must in some way advocate or encourage the commission of the crime. Watson v. State, 208 Md. 210, 219, 117 A.2d 549. See also Anello v. State, 201 Md. 164, 168, 93 A.2d 71. Mr. Carrington's testimony that Matthews and Solomon entered the apartment lobby together, and, with Matthews acting as lookout to prevent detection, Solomon broke the mail box, removed the check and together they walked rapidly out of the apartment lobby was clearly sufficient to permit a determination beyond a reasonable doubt that Matthews participated in the larceny from the mail boxes to an extent necessary to meet this test required by Watson v. State, supra . Appellant's motion for judgment of acquittal based on lack of sufficient evidence was properly denied.