Friend v. State
| Decision Date | 16 November 1938 |
| Docket Number | 21. |
| Citation | 2 A.2d 430,175 Md. 352 |
| Parties | FRIEND v. STATE. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Caroline County; J. Owen Knotts, Judge.
Chester Friend was indicted for receiving stolen goods, and from an adverse judgment, he appeals.
Reversed.
John P Stafford, Jr., and Z. H. Stafford, both of Easton, for appellant.
Herbert R. O'Conor, Atty. Gen., and Hilary W. Gans, Deputy Atty Gen., and Layman J. Redden, State's Atty., of Denton, for the State.
Submitted to BOND, C.J., and URNER, OFFUTT, PARKE, SLOAN, MITCHELL, SHEHAN, and JOHNSON, JJ.
The appellant, Chester Friend, was arrested on a warrant issued by a Justice of the Peace for Caroline County charging him with 'unlawfully having received certain stolen goods under the value of $25.00 knowing them to have been stolen on or about March 15th, 1938, the property of Perry Thomas.' He was tried, convicted and sentenced to nine months in the Maryland House of Correction. From this judgment and sentence the defendant appealed to the Circuit Court for Caroline County. While the appeal was pending, there was an indictment returned against him by the Grand Jury for that County. The offense charged in the indictment was the same as that in the warrant. The indictment states that 'Chester Friend and Lester Thomas late of the County aforesaid, on the sixteenth day of March, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and thirty-eight at the county aforesaid nine chickens, each chicken of the value of one dollar, current money, of the goods and chattels, moneys and properties of Perry Thomas, then lately before unlawfully stolen, taken and carried away, unlawfully did then and there have and receive * * *.' It is admitted in a statement of facts filed in support of a motion to quash the indictment, that the goods received, and described in the indictment, are the same as those in the warrant upon which the accused was tried by the Justice of the Peace and that the crime was the same offense in each of these proceedings. After the indictment was found the States Attorney entered a nolle prosequi of the case pending on the appeal. The appellant then filed the motion to quash the indictment supported by an affidavit and the agreed statement of facts, all of which clearly presented to the Trial Court the question here to be considered. The defendant claimed that for the crime charged under the indictment he was being twice put in jeopardy for the same offense. The plea to that effect is defective in that it is not verified by affidavit. Johns v. State, 55 Md. 350. This question had, however, been previously raised by the motion to quash the indictment. In reply to the contention of the appellant that he had been previously tried, and convicted by a Court of competent jurisdiction, for the same offense, as that presented in the indictment and, therefore, the indictment should have been quashed, the state urges that the Justice of the Peace had no jurisdiction to try the charge made in the warrant, because the offense of receiving stolen goods was punishable by imprisonment in the Penitentiary of Maryland and of such crimes a Justice of the Peace of Caroline County had no jurisdiction under the express provisions of Section 470, Article 27 and Section 12, Article 52 of the Code of Public General Laws; also under Article 6, Section 357 to 359, Code Public Local Laws 'Caroline County'.
It is apparent that, if the law so stood at the time of the trial of the defendant, the Justice of the Peace would have been without jurisdiction and the conviction would have been unlawful and would not put the defendant in jeopardy. Commonwealth v. Cunningham, 13 Mass. 245; Boswell v. State, 111 Ind. 47, 11 N.E. 788; State v. Reed, 168 Ind. 588, 81 N.E. 571; Bishop on Criminal Law, 3rd Edition, Vol. 1, Chapter 52, Sect. 866 page 481; Gilpin v. State, 142 Md. 464, 121 A. 354; 16 Corpus Juris, Sects. 370, 371, where numerous citations are given. But we have before us, cited on the appellant's brief, the Act of the General Assembly passed at the first special session 1936, Chapter 106, which amended Section 470, Article 27, and added to Article 27 of the Code of Public General Laws a new section to be known as 470A, and which, in substance, provides: That Justices of the Peace shall have jurisdiction, original and concurrent with the Courts of the State having criminal jurisdiction to try cases where the value of the stolen goods received is less than $25 and also provided the procedure to be followed upon the trial of such offense...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ward v. State
... ... Id. at 1068-1069. 9 ... An analysis of the leading Maryland case involving a nolle prosequi after the attachment[427 A.2d 1016] of jeopardy, Friend v. State, 175 Md. 352, 2 A.2d 430 (1938), confirms that a nolle prosequi ordinarily "operates as an acquittal" of the underlying offense only if this result is required by double ... jeopardy principles. Friend is the Maryland case regularly cited for the proposition that a nolle prosequi, ... ...
-
Lee v. State
... ... Syed had complained of ... [Hae's] treatment of him and said that he intended ... "to kill that bitch." Mr. Wilds claimed to have ... seen the body of [Hae] in the trunk of her car at the Best ... Buy parking lot. [ 4 ] [Jennifer] Pusateri, a friend of Mr. Wilds, ... told police, and testified at trial consistent with those ... statements, that Mr. Wilds told her that [Hae] had been ... strangled. At the time Ms. Pusateri relayed this information ... to the police, the manner of [Hae's] death had not been ... ...
-
State v. Simms
... ... The Court of Appeals held that, although the State has wide discretion to nol pros charges, the State has no authority to nol pros a final judgment. The defendant has a statutory right to appeal, and as we held in Friend v ... State , 175 Md. 352, 2 A.2d 430 (1938), the State does not have the authority to undermine that right by attempting to expand its nol pros authority to abandon the prosecution of the underlying charge(s) that lead to the conviction and sentence. Page 2 Circuit Court for Anne Arundel County ... ...
-
Robb v. State
... ... binding upon the courts of this State on non-federal ... questions. There is no decision supporting this contention ... To support this proposition the appellant relies on a ... statement made by this Court in the case of Friend v ... State, 175 Md. 352, at page 355, 2 A.2d 430, at page ... 432, where it was said: 'The trial and conviction of the ... appellant, therefore, was valid in law provides the terms and ... provisions of the act were observed by the Justice of the ... Peace, and there is nothing in the record ... ...