Hamilton v. State

• Decision Date: 11 January 1916
• Docket Number: 20.
• Citation: 96 A. 523,127 Md. 312
• Parties: HAMILTON v. STATE.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

96 A. 523

127 Md. 312

HAMILTON v. STATE.

No. 20.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

January 11, 1916

Appeal from Circuit Court, Baltimore County; Frank I. Duncan, Judge.

"To be officially reported."

Joseph Hamilton was convicted of a violation of Acts 1912, c. 163 and he appeals. Judgment affirmed.

William H. Lawrence, of Baltimore, for appellant. Edgar Allan Poe Atty. Gen., for the State.

CONSTABLE J.

The appellant was indicted for violation of the provisions of chapter 163 of the Acts of 1912 entitled "Bastardy and Fornication," and now codified in volume 3, Bagby's Code as article 12. He was found guilty and sentenced, in conformity with the act, to give bond for the maintenance of the child. From that judgment he has prosecuted this appeal.

There are only two points attempted to be raised for the consideration of this court. The point principally relied upon for a reversal of the judgment is that there was error committed in overruling a motion to quash the indictment. Although the brief of the appellant contains the reasons in support of the motion, nothing appears in the record but the bare mention in the docket entries that a motion to quash was made. We have found nowhere in the whole record nor is there to be found any statement of facts because of which the court was asked to quash the indictment.

There are a great many things for which a court may be asked to quash an indictment, but from this record we are unable to discover what points or questions were raised or what determined by the court. Since the enactment of section 80 of article 5 of the Code by the acts of 1892, this court has held that on appeal the proceedings in criminal cases are to be the same as in civil. Mitchell v. State, 82 Md 527, 34 A. 246. By section 9 of article 5 of the Code, this court in civil cases has long been prevented from deciding on appeal any point or question which does not certainly appear by the record to have been tried and decided by the court below; and this court has held, in Mitchell v State, 82 Md. 527, 34 A. 246, that this section is applicable to criminal as well as civil cases. The precise point we are now considering has been decided by the court in State v. Williams, 85 Md. 231, 36 A. 823, which was an appeal by the state from a judgment upon the sustaining of a motion to quash an indictment and in which the court said:

"As we have said, there are no facts set forth in the motion, or what purports to be the motion, it being a statement of a conclusion of law of the most general character. The motion should have clearly and fully stated the facts upon which the defendant relied (Wharton's Crim. Pl. & Pr. § 397), and those facts should have been spread upon the record by an agreed statement or by a special finding of the court. Questions of law arise out of and depend upon

...