Hubbard v. State
| Citation | 72 A.2d 733,195 Md. 103 |
| Decision Date | 14 April 1950 |
| Docket Number | 132. |
| Parties | HUBBARD v. STATE. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Calvin L. Brinsfield, Cambridge (Brinsfield & Malkus Cambridge, on the brief), for appellant.
Kenneth C Proctor, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Hall Hammond, Atty. Gen., and Charles E. Edmondson, State's Atty., Dorchester Co. Cambridge, on the brief), for appellee.
Before MARBURY, C J., and COLLINS, GRASON, HENDERSON, and MARKELL, JJ.
On October 9, 1949 Sergeant Howard M. Smith, Jr., of the police force of the City of Cambridge, Dorchester County, Maryland, swore out a warrant before Trial Magistrate Jones, in which he charged Naomi Hubbard 'on or about the 9th day of October, 1949 at the City of Cambridge, * * * unlawfully did keep and suffer to be kept on her premises, in her possession, and under her charge and control for the purpose of sale and delivery within this State, certain alcoholic beverages, without a license or permit as provided by law, * * *.' Article 2B, Section 2, 1947 Supplement to Code.
The accused prayed a jury trial and was tried in the Circuit Court for Dorchester County before a jury, convicted, sentenced, and has appealed to this court.
On the night of October 9, 1949, Sergeant Smith went to the home of Naomi Hubbard, rapped on the door, and after she was told that he had a warrant for her arrest, she opened the door and he entered. Shortly thereafter Lieutenant Leonard and Sergeant Dayton, of the Cambridge police, entered the traverser's home. There was an apartment on the first floor of her house, consisting of a kitchen, a combination dining room and living room, and a bedroom. The testimony of the State is that after the warrant was read to the traverser she was asked if they could 'look around', and she told them that they could 'look around'. The result was that the officers found in the apartment five bottles, some containing gin and some containing whiskey. This testimony was contradicted by the traverser.
The traverser filed a motion to suppress the evidence found by the officers on the night of the arrest, because the search by which it was obtained was illegal, and in violation of Article 35, section 5, of the 1947 Supplement to the Annotated Code to Maryland, and of Articles 22 and 26 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights, and Amendments Four and Five of the Constitution of the United States. The court overruled the motion. At the trial objection was made to the introduction of the gin and whiskey found by the police, and overruled. These are the only questions presented on this appeal.
Sergeant Smith, at the time he went to the traverser's home and arrested her, had a warrant issued by Trial Magistrate Jones charging the...
To continue reading
Request your trial