Court Opinion

ID: 9652081
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 17:16:07.514947+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:48.010059
License: Public Domain

Thompson, J.,
dissenting:
I cannot agree that the trial judge erred when he denied the motion for judgment of acquittal as to indictments nos. 2183 and 2185. Since the evidence to support these indictments is fully set out in the majority opinion I shall not repeat it except to *675point out that the evidence showed that three separate breaking and enterings occurred within the town of Hurlock during the night of November 12, 1966. The town of Hurlock, according to the 1960 census, had a population of only 1,035 people.1 I think it most unlikely that more than three such crimes occurred within such a small community on the same night and that this inference, together with the other testimony, clearly tied in the accomplice’s testimony to the two indictments in question and to the testimony of the other witnesses. I point out first: that a motion to acquit should be denied if there are rational inferences or credible evidence to support the verdict, see Williams v. State, supra (majority opinion) and secondly: that it is unnecessary for the state to prove guilt to a mathematical certainty; a moral certainty is sufficient. Pettis v. State, 2 Md. App. 651, 236 A. 2d 429, Johnson v. State, 227 Md. 159, 175 A. 2d 580. Judge Anderson joins in this dissent.

. This is a matter of which the court could take judicial notice. See Line v. Line, 119 Md. 403, 407, 86 A. 1033 (the calendar); Dean v. State, 205 Md. 274, 107 A. 2d 88, 91 (That certain streets are located in Baltimore City) and 1 Jones: Hvidence § 142, n.7 (5th Ed.) (the census).