Blaney v. State

• Decision Date: 25 March 1891
• Citation: 21 A. 547,74 Md. 153
• Parties: BLANEY v. STATE.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

21 A. 547

74 Md. 153

BLANEY v. STATE.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

March 25, 1891

Error to criminal court of Baltimore city.

Argued before ALVEY, C.J., and BRYAN, MILLER, IRVING, FOWLER BRISCOE, and MCSHERRY, JJ.

H W. Williams and U. W. Williams, for plaintiff in error.

Atty. Gen. Whyte, for the State.

MCSHERRY J.

William Blaney was indicted by the grand jury of Baltimore city for the murder of his aunt, and upon his arraignment he interposed the following motion, called in the record a "plea in abatement," viz.: "The defendant William Blaney, by his counsel, U. Winslow Williams, hereby moves that the indictment be quashed for the following reasons: (1) It appears upon the face of the record that the grand jury was without jurisdiction to find the same. (2) The said indictment is not based upon an accusation made before a committing magistrate, nor was said case given in charge to the grand jury by the court or state's attorney (3) The said indictment is not based upon a presentment by the grand jury, made upon the personal knowledge or observation of its members, or upon the testimony of witnesses sent to it by the court or state's attorney. (4) The offense charged in said indictment is not of such a character, or of such public notoriety, as to require or warrant an extraordinary original investigation and presentment by the grand jury. (5) The preliminary bearing, coroner's inquest, and commitment upon which such indictment was intended and supposed to be based, were held and had entirely on Sunday, without necessity or warrant, and were therefore void and of no effect." To this plea the state demurred, and, the demurrer being sustained by the court, the accused then pleaded not guilty, and was put upon his trial, which resulted in his being convicted of murder in the first degree. After sentence of death had been passed upon him, he filed a petition in the criminal court, asking that the record be removed to this court as upon writ of error. The error assigned is the ruling of the criminal court in sustaining the demurrer to the plea in abatement. The record shows that the coroner committed the accused to jail on Sunday, May 4, 1890. That the warden of the city jail on the following day transmitted to the criminal court a copy of the coroner's commitment, and a list of witnesses appended thereto; and that, two days later, the grand jury, having heard the witnesses, returned the commitment into court indorsed, "Presentment," which indorsement was signed by the foreman. On the 10th of May the indictment now before us was returned in due form by the grand jury. It is this indictment which the accused alleges the grand jury were without jurisdiction to find. The theory upon which the plea is founded rests upon the entire misconception of the scope and extent of the powers and the jurisdiction of a grand jury in Maryland. The plea assumes that a grand jury are without authority to indict (except in a few unimportant cases) unless upon the personal knowledge or observation of the members thereof, or unless the matter be given them in charge by the court, or be laid before them by the state's attorney, or the accusation be first made before a committing magistrate. This view, while adopted and acted on in some of the states, has never prevailed in Maryland, at least since the Revolution. It denies the grand jury all inquisitorial power, --one of their most important functions, --and limits them to the investigation only of cases laid before them or falling under their personal knowledge or observation. It prohibits them from originating a prosecution, though the ends of justice might be absolutely defeated by the publicity incident to the taking of initiatory steps before a magistrate. It circumscribes the sphere of their usefulness, and in a large measure deprives them of most efficient means to bring the lawless and the vicious to speedy trial and punishment. That grand juries may on their own motion...