# Loker v. State

> Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · September 1, 1967 · 2 Md. App. 1

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9757899

## Case

- **Full name:** William M. Loker, Jr. v. State of Maryland
- **Court:** Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
- **Decided:** September 1, 1967
- **Citations:** 2 Md. App. 1; 233 A.2d 342; 1967 Md. App. LEXIS 216
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Thompson
- **Judges:** Orth, Thompson
- **Cited by:** 32 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9757899

## Opinion text

Thompson, J.,
dissenting:
I agree with the findings of the majority with one exception. I do not think that the fact that the appellant was a public official, and an officer — the treasurer of the town body corporate, was sufficient to place the constructive possession of the safe in the town. In each of the cases cited by the majority as authority for the finding on this question there was present a factor not present in the instant case — access to the depository by the owner of the funds independent of the accused. This access was through a third party officer of the owner or by actual knowledge of the owner of the combination of the depository lock or *39 by possession of a key to it. Although I concur that the rule on the point is as stated by the majority, I believe that, applying the rule to the facts of this case, the town safe was in the possession of the appellant and not merely in his custody. Therefore, when the funds were placed in the safe, the exclusive possession of the appellant was not terminated, and the subsequent taking of the funds by him, animus furandi, was not larceny but embezzlement. Since the trial judge instructed the jury that the “only evidence that, if true, would permit a conviction of embezzlement in this case is the evidence that relates itself to the so-called less cash transactions,” I would reverse the judgment on the larceny count of the indictment. In reaching this conclusion, I fully realize that this approach is highly technical, but I think the Court is bound by the ruling of the Court of Appeals in Nolan v. State, 213 Md. 298 .

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9757899. Public record. Not legal advice.