Beard v. State
| Court | Court of Appeals of Maryland |
| Writing for the Court | MCSHERRY, J. |
| Citation | 74 Md. 130,21 A. 700 |
| Decision Date | 25 March 1891 |
| Parties | BEARD v. STATE. |
74 Md. 130
BEARD
v.
STATE.
Court of Appeals of Maryland.
March 25, 1891.
Error to criminal court of Baltimore city.
Argued before Miller, Robinson, Bryan, Irving, Briscoe, and McSherry, JJ.
Tho. C. Ruddell, for appellant.
Atty. Gen. Whyte and Charles G. Kerr, for the State.
MCSHERRY, J. The appellant was indicted for the common-law offense of keeping a disorderly house, and was convicted by the verdict of a jury in the criminal court of Baltimore city. He thereupon appealed to this court upon exceptions reserved during the trial, and pending the appeal was released on bail. In June, 1889, the rulings of the court below were affirmed, (71 Md. 275, 17 Atl. Rep. 1044,) and Beard disappeared. His recognizance was forfeited, but he was not taken until the 16th day of October, 1890. In the mean time—that is, after his conviction, and before his arrest in October last—an act of assembly was passed, being chapter 523 of the Acts of January session, 1890. That statute enacts that "any person who shall keep a disorderly house shall, on conviction thereof, be subject to a fine of not
less that $50 nor more than $300, or by imprisonment in jail for not less than 10 days nor more than 6 months, or by both fine and imprisonment." On the 11th of October a motion in arrest of judgment was filed. It was founded on the change made by this act of assembly in the punishment for keeping a disorderly house. This motion was heard by the supreme bench of Baltimore city, and overruled, whereupon a sentence of 13 months in jail and $1,200 fine was imposed by the criminal court; and from that final judgment Beard has brought the record into this court by petition as upon a writ of error. The question is whether the criminal court had authority to inflict the punishment it did.
The offense of keeping a disorderly house is a common-law misdemeanor. It is not defined in and was not created by any statute of this state. The punishment for it when Beard was convicted was, in the discretion of the court, a fine or imprisonment or both; and the amount of the fine and the length of the imprisonment were likewise in the court's discretion. This was the punishment at common law. The act of 1890, passed after Beard had been convicted and had fled, and before he was sentenced, prescribed for the first time a statutory penalty, which is greater than the minimum and less than the maximum common-law punishment. The common law, and not the statutory penalty, was imposed upon him. He claims that the statute repealed by implication the common-law punishment, even as respects cases previously tried and convictions previously had; and that there was, therefore, no power in the court to impose the penalty it did; and that, consequently, the sentence is a nullity. As the act of 1890 makes the minimum penalty for the offense greater than the court limit at common law, it is quite apparent that the statute is, as to Beard, an ex post facto law, and that he cannot be punished under it. A law which...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson v. State., No. 143.
...without a license, as is pointed out in * * *.’ The State cites the Lutz case (Lutz v. State), 167 Md. 12, 172 A. 354; Beard v. State, 74 Md. 130, 21 A. 700; State v. Haas, Md. 51 A.2d 647; and 2 Wharton, Criminal Law (1935 Edition), sections 1722-1734. These cases are not in point. As we h......
-
Young v. State, No. 79
...in the context of the repeal of a criminal offense, as were the cases relied on therein, namely Smith v. State, 45 Md. 49; Beard v. State, 74 Md. 130, 21 A. 700; State v. Gambrill, 115 Md. 506, 81 A. 10, and State v. Clifton, 177 Md. 572, 10 A.2d 703. Nor do we find that the other cases cit......
-
Bell v. State of Maryland, No. 12
...the law at the time of final judgment.' The rule has since been reaffirmed by the Maryland court on a number of occasions. Beard v. State, 74 Md. 130, 135, 21 A. 700, 702 (1891); Smith v. State, 45 Md. 49 (1876); State v. Gambrill, 115 Md. 506, 513, 81 A. 10, 12 (1911); State v. Clifton, 17......
-
Hawkins v. State, 74
...punishment to that prescribed when a criminal act was committed. Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 386, 1 L.Ed. 648 (1798); Beard v. State, 74 Md. 130, 21 A. 700 Section 643B does not reach back to the prior act as an impermissible ex post facto law. The statute does not aggravate Hawkins' p......
-
Johnson v. State., No. 143.
...without a license, as is pointed out in * * *.’ The State cites the Lutz case (Lutz v. State), 167 Md. 12, 172 A. 354; Beard v. State, 74 Md. 130, 21 A. 700; State v. Haas, Md. 51 A.2d 647; and 2 Wharton, Criminal Law (1935 Edition), sections 1722-1734. These cases are not in point. As we h......
-
Young v. State, No. 79
...in the context of the repeal of a criminal offense, as were the cases relied on therein, namely Smith v. State, 45 Md. 49; Beard v. State, 74 Md. 130, 21 A. 700; State v. Gambrill, 115 Md. 506, 81 A. 10, and State v. Clifton, 177 Md. 572, 10 A.2d 703. Nor do we find that the other cases cit......
-
Bell v. State of Maryland, No. 12
...the law at the time of final judgment.' The rule has since been reaffirmed by the Maryland court on a number of occasions. Beard v. State, 74 Md. 130, 135, 21 A. 700, 702 (1891); Smith v. State, 45 Md. 49 (1876); State v. Gambrill, 115 Md. 506, 513, 81 A. 10, 12 (1911); State v. Clifton, 17......
-
Hawkins v. State, No. 74
...punishment to that prescribed when a criminal act was committed. Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 386, 1 L.Ed. 648 (1798); Beard v. State, 74 Md. 130, 21 A. 700 Section 643B does not reach back to the prior act as an impermissible ex post facto law. The statute does not aggravate Hawkins' p......