RONALD ALEXANDER HOBBY v. STATE OF MARYLAND
Court of Appeals, Watts, Filed Jan. 24, 2014,
Theft- “Theft of a house may occur through occupancy or possession of the house without payment for it or its use to the lawful owner and without authorization or consent of the lawful owner.”
A good case to read for a look at the core of the theft and burglary statutes. It’s not Moylan, but it’s not a bad read.
Notes from the case on theft:
– Asportation (carrying away) is not required under the modern theft statute
– Real property, not covered under larceny at common law, is included in “property” defined by the theft statute
– CL 7-104(b) required only the intent to deprive, not actual deprivation
– The value of the goods are to be determined according to the nature of the theft
– The value of wrongful possession of a house without payment of rent is the fair market value of the right to possess the house during the period of the wrongful occupancy, not the value of the house itself
– In contrast, the value for a theft of a property in fee simple would be the value of the property, not its rental value
Notes from the case on Burglary:
– To be a dwelling, the place must be of human habitation, that is, a “place to sleep in.” (citing McKenzie v. State)
– A structure does not become a dwelling until someone occupies it.
– Once a structure becomes a dwelling, it “does not lose its character as a dwelling simply because it is left vacant for a time.”
– There is a distinction between a temporarily unoccupied dwelling and a dwelling that has been completely abandoned by its occupants.
– Where a dwelling is fit for human habitation, absence of 8 months did not make it abandoned during foreclosure where prior occupant could have returned at any point until purchase by bank
– Breaking can be either actual or constructive
– An “actual breaking” occurs by “unloosing, removing or displacing any covering or fastening of the premises” (quoting Jones), including turning a key or knob
– A “constructive breaking” involves entry gained by artifice, fraud, conspiracy or threat
Other holding from the case:
– New trial is not required where the State fails to prove theft over $100,000 when the facts did prove theft of $10,000 to $100,000. Remanded for conviction and sentencing on underlying offense.