## Facts

- Wayne Sylvester Hebron was convicted in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County of breaking and entering a dwelling, attempted breaking and entering a dwelling, and malicious destruction of property.
- A homeowner left for work after closing and locking her front door.
- When she returned, the door frame was splintered and broken, the door could be pushed open, and it could not be secured.
- Splinters and chips from the damaged door were found on a mat just inside the doorway.
- A neighbor saw Hebron drive a gray car, park near the home, and walk toward the home between two buildings.
- The neighbor heard a loud “bash” sound; about twenty seconds later, she saw Hebron return to the car and drive away.
- No witness saw Hebron inside the home, and nothing was reported missing.
- The State introduced evidence that the car’s license plates were stolen.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was legally sufficient to prove an “entry” into the dwelling when no one saw Hebron inside and no property was taken.
2. Whether the trial court erred by refusing a requested jury instruction that circumstantial evidence must be inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence.
3. Whether the trial court erred by admitting evidence that the car Hebron drove had stolen license plates as other-acts evidence.

## Decision

- The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland affirmed all convictions.
- The evidence permitted a rational jury to find “entry” beyond a reasonable doubt based on the forced door, debris inside the threshold, and the neighbor’s observations placing Hebron at the scene immediately before and after the break.
- The trial court properly refused the requested circumstantial-evidence instruction because the reasonable-doubt instruction adequately governs both direct and circumstantial proof.
- Evidence that the license plates were stolen was admissible for a non-propensity purpose (including identification and context) and was not unfairly prejudicial so as to require reversal.

## Legal Principles

- “Entry” in burglary-type offenses may be shown by even slight intrusion of a body part or an instrument into the protected interior space, and it may be proven by circumstantial physical evidence.
- Maryland law does not require a special instruction that circumstantial evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence; the State’s burden remains proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Other-acts evidence is inadmissible to prove propensity but may be admitted for legitimate non-propensity purposes (such as identity or explaining circumstances) when its probative value is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Hebron’s convictions, holding that circumstantial evidence supported a finding of entry, the standard reasonable-doubt instruction sufficiently covered the State’s circumstantial case, and the stolen-license-plate evidence was properly admitted for non-propensity purposes without causing reversible unfair prejudice.


Hebron v. State, 608 A.2d 1291 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1992)