Goodman v. State
Decision Date | 05 March 1940 |
Docket Number | 38,39. |
Parties | GOODMAN et al. v. STATE. GOODMAN v. SAME. |
Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Appeals from Criminal Court of Baltimore City; Eugene O'Dunne Judge.
Sol Goodman and another an Lottie Goodman were convicted of operating establishment for taking bets on horse races, and they appeal in the same record.
Affirmed.
Robert R. Carman and David J. Markoff, both of Baltimore, for appellants.
Robert E. Clapp, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., and Stewart Lee Smith, Asst State's Atty., of Baltimore (William C. Walsh, Atty Gen., and J. Bernard Wells, State's Atty., of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellee.
Argued before BOND, C.J., and OFFUTT, PARKE, SLOAN, MITCHELL, and DELAPLAINE, JJ.
Sol Goodman was indicted on charges of betting, wagering, and gambling unlawfully on the result of a trotting, pacing, and running race; of unlawfully selling racing books and pools; establishing, keeping and occupying a certain house, building, etc., for the purpose of unlawfully betting and taking bets on races. The indictment contains fifteen counts charging practically the same offense in a variety of forms and charges. There was no question of the validity of the indictment, so that there is no need to enter into its details. The verdict was guilty, and from the judgment thereon, the defendant appeals.
A similar indictment was returned against Lottie Goodman, wife of Sol Goodman, with the same result. Both appeals are in the same record, and argued as one case.
At the trials of both defendants it was stipulated that 'the only questions to be raised are those concerning the validity of the search and seizure made thereunder.'
Preceding tha arrest of the defendant and the raid of the premises by the police officers, Sergeant Ralph M. Amrein, in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1939, ch. 749, Code, Art. 27, § 259A, applied to Judge Emory H. Niles for a search warrant to enter the premises, No. 1230 W. North Avenue in Baltimore City and search for and seize certain racing paraphernalia described in his affidavit, and thereupon a search warrant was issued by Judge Niles.
The affidavit which was the basis of Judge Niles' action was as follows:
The warrant issued in pursuance of the affidavit was as follows:
An indictment followed and thereupon Sol Goodman filed a petition alleging that the search warrant was void because
'(A) The affidavit and sworn statement of one Sergeant Ralph Amrein, upon which the said search warrant was issued, contains no statements forming a sufficient basis for the issuance of said search warrant, and that there are no facts stated in said affidavit or in said sworn statement which show any probable cause for issuance of said warrant.
'(b) That said search warrant is void in that it does not allege or recite that the Judge of the Supreme Bench issuing the same, found that there was probable cause for issuance of said search warrant.
'(c) That said search warrant is void because it appears upon the face of the warrant, that although the premises to be searched and the name of the applicant are set forth therein, the grounds for such search and seizure are not set forth with the particularity as is required by statute.
'(d) And for such other and further reasons as may be shown upon a hearing of the petition.' and prayed that the search warrant be quashed, and all papers, books, etc., seized by the officers be returned to him.
A preliminary hearing was had on the motion to quash, before Judge O'Dunne, and the motion overruled. At this hearing the search warrant was offered in evidence, and with it a carbon copy of the affidavit, which was signed by 'Sergeant Ralph Amrein,' but the jurat to which was blank. Sergeant Amrien testified that when he served the warrant, 'That affidavit accompanied the search warrant when I presented it to Sitnick (a clerk in the store).
It was agreed 'that the affidavit was not pinned to or otherwise physically attached to the warrant when the latter was served.'
The appellant vigorously argued that the affidavit offered in evidence was objectionable, because the jurat was not signed by a judge or magistrate. This contention must be ignored because, according to the record, it was not objected to, was not raised below, and cannot, therefore, be considered on appeal. Code, Art. 5, § 10.
The defendant argues that the search warrant should contain the grounds for search, and that it does not meet the requirements of the Act of 1939 unless the affidavit is physically attached to the warrant as part of it. The act requires that the 'search warrant shall name or describe with reasonable particularity, the individual, building, apartment, premise, place or thing to be searched, the grounds for such search and the name of the applicant on whose written application as aforesaid the warrant was issued.' The 'grounds for such search' were not set forth in the warrant itself, and it was stipulated that the officer's affidavit was not physically attached to the warrant. As already said...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Parker v. State
...not be applied to state searches and seizures. 5. See Frankel v. State, 178 Md. 553, 561, 16 A.2d 93, 97 (1940); Goodman v. State, 178 Md. 1, 8, 11 A.2d 635, 639 (1940). 6. In addition, see State v. Lee, 374 Md. 275, 289 n. 9, 821 A.2d 922, 930 n. 9 (2003), pointing out that, under the Rich......
-
Wood v. State
...the State's attorney admitting that if the search warrant is void, the lottery slips were improperly admitted in evidence. Goodman v. State, 178 Md. 1, 4, 11 A.2d 635; Mazer v. State, 179 Md. 293, 295, 18 A.2d Foreman v. State, 182 Md. 415, 416, 417, 35 A.2d 171. The ultimate question there......
-
Smith v. State
... ... after the passage of Article 27, Section 306, supra. We are ... of opinion that as this section uses the words 'at any ... time,' the Legislature intended that a hearing on motion ... to quash the search warrant might be heard either before or ... during the trial. Goodman v. State, 178 Md. 1, 7, 11 ... A.2d 635 ... We must ... next decide whether, in the hearing on the motion to quash ... the search warrant, the matters in the affidavit showing ... probable cause can be controverted or disputed and the ... warrant thereby nullified. In the ... ...
-
Dail v. Price
... ... A. McAllister and V. Calvin Trice, both of Cambridge, for ... appellant ... Frederick ... P. McBriety, of Cambridge, State's Atty. (William C ... Walsh, Atty. Gen., and J. Edgar Harvey, Asst. Atty. Gen., on ... the brief), for appellee ... Before ... invalid for want of probable cause, and this would ordinarily ... be the end of the case, Goodman v. State, 178 Md. 1, ... 11 A.2d 635, section 306 was not designed as a substitute for ... an action of replevin, or other appropriate proceeding, ... ...