Brun v. Lazzell, 50.

CourtCourt of Appeals of Maryland
Citation191 A. 240
Docket NumberNo. 50.,50.
PartiesBRUN et al. v. LAZZELL.
Decision Date09 April 1937
191 A. 240

BRUN et al.

No. 50.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

April 9, 1937.

191 A. 241

Appeal from Baltimore City Court; Joseph N. Ulman, Judge.

Mandamus proceeding by Charles B. Lazzell against B. Lucien Brun and others, constituting the Maryland State Board of Dental Examiners, to compel it to cancel its revocation of the license or certificate of registration of petitioner, which had been revoked by the board. From an order granting the writ of mandamus, the board appeals.

Reversed and petition dismissed.


Charles T. LeViness, 3d, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Herbert R. O'Conor, Atty. Gen., on the brief), for appellants. Willis R. Jones, of Baltimore (Joseph O. Buchoff, of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellee.

SLOAN, Judge.

This appeal is from an order granting the writ of mandamus on the petition of Charles B. Lazzell, to compel the respondents, B. Lucien Brun, J. Stevenson Hopkins, Louis Rossman, T. L. McCarriar, Frank P. Haynes, and Arthur P. Dixon, constituting the Maryland state board of dental examiners, to cancel its revocation of the license or certificate of registration, which had been revoked by the board December 26, 1935, effective January 1, 1936.

The petition states that the petitioner (appellee) graduated from the school of dentistry of the University of Maryland in the year 1926; that later in that year he passed the examination conducted by the then board of dental examiners, a certificate of registration was issued to him, and thereafter until January 1, 1936, he was engaged in the practice of his profession in this state; that on December 26, 1935, he received a letter from the board of dental examiners advising him that it had revoked his license; that prior to that letter he had received a letter under date of April 13, 1935, advising him that, at a meeting of the board held April 12, 1935, under the authority of section 8 of the Maryland State Dental Law of 1933, c. 564 (Code, Supp.1935, art. 32, § 8), his license to practice dentistry had been canceled because of his "recent conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude," unless he show cause to the contrary, in writing, to the board on or before April 20, 1935; that following the receipt of this letter of April 13, 1935, he filed an answer in writing "(a) that he had not been convicted of any crime involving "moral turpitude"; (b) that the offense of "indecent exposure" does not involve "moral turpitude"; and (c) that the circumstances under which petitioner pleaded guilty to the offense of "indecent exposure" did not involve "moral turpitude"; that a hearing was had on the charges before the board on December 3, 1935, at which the petitioner appeared in person and by attorney, at which he admitted that he had pleaded guilty to the offense of "indecent exposure," and he was so found; that he related the circumstances concerning the plea and conviction; that his testimony showed that "he had not committed the offense of 'indecent exposure' in any public place and that the circum stances which led to his plea of guilty and conviction were entirely accidental so far as * * * petitioner was concerned, and that no one would have seen or been able to see * * * petitioner exposed except by peeping through windows or open doors into the privacy of the office or home of * * * petitioner"; that his admission as stated was the only evidence at the hearing,

191 A. 242

and that it showed there was "no intent to commit the crime of 'indecent exposure.'"

The petitioner denied the authority of the dental board to revoke his license because he had been licensed to practice dentistry before the passage of the act of 1933, c. 564 (Code Supplement, art. 32), by section 11 of which it was provided that "nothing in this Article, or in any other provision of this Code, shall be so construed as to interfere with the rights and privileges of physicians and surgeons, * * * nor of persons holding certificates duly issued to them by the State Board of Dental Examiners of Maryland prior to the passage of this Act."

The board filed a demurrer and answer to the petition. The order appealed from sustained the petitioner's demurrer to the answer so there is no need to consider any of the grounds of the board's demurrer, except the sufficiency of the charge of "indecent exposure" as involving "moral turpitude," and the application of the act of 1933, c. 564. By way of answer the board either flatly admitted or denied the statements of fact and legal conclusions, and, as they are clearly enough stated in the petition, it is not necessary to repeat them, except to say that the answer concluded by specifically charging that on October 17, 1931, the petitioner was arrested on a charge of indecent exposure to which he pleaded guilty, was convicted and fined $100 and costs at the Northwestern police station; that on February 15, 1935, he was arrested by a patrolman who saw him expose himself to several school girls who were passing the house in which he had his office, and when the case came up for trial petitioner pleaded guilty. He was also indicted for a similar offense committed February 12, 1935, to which he pleaded guilty, and it was upon this information of the three pleas of guilty and conviction, the board of dental...

To continue reading

Request your trial
27 cases
  • Bane v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • 13 d5 Novembro d5 1987
    ...contrary to the accepted and customary conduct between men." State v. Duckett, supra; Ricketts v. State, supra; Dental Examiners v. Lazzell, 172 Md. 314, 191 A. 240 (1937). Moral turpitude suggests, therefore, "such a disregard for social values on the part of the perpetrator, that one coul......
  • Ricketts v. State, 167
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • 6 d5 Novembro d5 1981
    ...that it connoted conduct which was base or vile and contrary to the accepted and customary conduct between men. Dental Examiners v. Lazzell, 172 Md. 314, 320, 191 A. 240 (1937). In Cousins v. State, 230 Md. 2, 185 A.2d 488 (1962) we recognized a broader base for the use of prior convictions......
  • Matthews v. State, 1467
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • 1 d0 Setembro d0 1985 crimes of moral turpitude has yet to be determined. Ricketts v. State, 291 Md. at 707, 436 A.2d 906, citing Dental Examiners v. Lazell, 172 Md. 314, 320, 191 A. 240 (1937). In Lazell, this very question was What is moral turpitude? Lexicographers and courts agree on the definition, but t......
  • Oltman v. Board of Physicians
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • 2 d4 Junho d4 2005
    ...the term "moral turpitude" are evident when we compare the Court of Appeals's decisions in Bd. of Dental Exam'rs v. Lazzell, 172 Md. 314, 191 A. 240 (1937), and Ricketts v. State, 291 Md. 701, 436 A.2d 906 (1981). We turn to review those In Lazzell, 172 Md. at 321-22, 191 A. 240, the Court ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT