MARYLAND CRIMINAL LAW WAREHOUSE: Maryland v. Weems, No. 20, September Term 2012

Attorney Charles Jerome Ware is renowned and consistently ranked among the best attorneys and legal counsellors in the United States. [GQ Magazine, The Washington Post, The Baltimore Sun, The Columbia Flier, The Howard County Sun, The Anniston Star, The New York Times, et al.]

STATE OF MARYLAND v. LATRESHA L. WEEMS, In the Court of Appeals of Maryland, No. 20, September Term 2012; originated in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County, Case No. 02-K-09-001485:

Latresha L. Weems was convicted by the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County of theft. She appealed to the Maryland Court of Special Appeals and won. The State then appealed to the Maryland Court of Appeals.

The key question presented for appellant was whether the evidence introduced in the case in trial was sufficient to sustain Weems' conviction of theft.

The Maryland Court of Special Appeals said "no", and reversed the guilty verdict of the circuit court.

The Maryland Court of Appeals agreed with the Court of Special Appeals, said "no", and summed up their decision as follows:

CRIMINAL LAW -- THEFT OVER $500 -- KNOWLEDGE OF PROPERTY BEING LOST, MISLAID, OR DELIVERED BY MISTAKE -- Maryland Code (2002, 2012 Repl. Vol.), § 7-104(d) of the Criminal Law Article prohibits a person from obtaining control over property "knowing that the property was lost, mislaid, or was delivered under a mistake." The statute also states that a person can develop an intent to steal after obtaining property that is lost, mislaid, or delivered by mistake, and after gaining later knowledge of the property's owner. The statute is ambiguous, however, regarding whether a person must know at the time he or she obtains property that the property is lost, mislaid, or delivered by mistake. When a statute is ambiguous and subject to multiple interpretations, the rule of lenity requires that the statute be construed in favor of the accused. When the State does not provide any evidence at trial that a person knew of the counterfeit nature of a check at the time she obtained funds from cashing the check, the facts are insufficient to sustain a conviction for theft.

[also see, Weems v. Maryland, No. 2782, September Term 2009; Md. Code (2002, 2012 Repl. Vol.), § 7-104(d), Criminal Law Article; "The rule of lenity": statutes are strictly construed in favor of the accused, Moore v. State, 388 Md. 623, 632 (2005); State v. Purcell, 342 Md. 214, 229 (1996)]