Pick v. State

• Decision Date: 04 April 1923
• Docket Number: 23.
• Citation: 121 A. 918,143 Md. 192
• Parties: PICK v. STATE.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

121 A. 918

143 Md. 192

PICK v. STATE.

No. 23.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

April 4, 1923

Appeal from Criminal Court of Baltimore City; James P. Gorter Judge.

"To be officially reported."

Bessie L. Pick was convicted of larceny, and she appeals. Affirmed.

Isaac Lobe Straus, William Pinkney Whyte, Jr., and Walter E. Sinn all of Baltimore, for appellant.

Alexander Armstrong, Atty. Gen., Lindsay C. Spencer, Asst. Atty. Gen and Robert F. Leach, Jr., State's Atty., of Baltimore for the State.

BRISCOE J.

Bessie L. Pick, of Baltimore city, was on the 2d day of August, 1920, indicted jointly with one Frank D. Schultz, in the criminal court of Baltimore city, for larceny of certain sums of money and with receiving stolen goods. The indictments contained two counts.

The first count charged Bessie L. Pick, as principal, and Frank D. Schultz, as accessory before the fact, and the second count charged them with receiving the money, knowing it to have been stolen. The four indictments were in substance the same, except differing in the amounts charged to have been stolen and received, and the date of the commission of the offenses.

Frank D. Schultz died on the 13th day of June, 1920, and the cases abated as to him, but were subsequently tried as to Bessie L. Pick. She was acquitted on the second count of each indictment, but adjudged guilty of larceny on the first count of the indictments, and sentenced to be confined in the Baltimore city jail for the period of two years, on each indictment; the sentences to run concurrently.

The pleadings in the case, it will be seen, are in some respects somewhat unusual under the practice in this state of presenting to the court the facts and questions relied upon by the traverser, in cases of this character.

Waiving, however, the technical objections as to the pleadings, we will consider the real questions presented by the rulings of the court, which the traverser contends were in violation of her constitutional rights, and which action of the court on these rulings was reversible error.

It appears from the record that on the 24th of March, 1922, the traverser filed a motion to quash each indictment, alleging in substance that each indictment was found in violation of the Declaration of Rights and the Constitution and laws of the state of Maryland and also of the Constitution of the United States.

The reasons and grounds for the motion, as stated in the record, are as follows:

"1. Because after she, the said Bessie L. Pick, had been arrested by reason of the matters and upon the charges set forth in said indictment, and taken into custody, and whilst she was under bail, and without counsel or any professional aid or advice, and had been advised by the police authorities of the state, who had her in custody, that counsel was unnecessary inasmuch as the state intended to help her, she, the said Bessie L. Pick, was by a subp na, duly directed and issued to and served upon her, commanded and required to appear before the grand jurors of the state of Maryland, for the body of the city of Baltimore, by which grand jurors said indictment was found, and without being warned that her testimony would be used against her, to testify before and unto said grand jurors against herself and the said Frank D. Schultz mentioned in said indictment and jointly indicted with her therein, with respect to the matters and facts referred to, alleged and charged in said indictment; that said indictment was directly found upon said testimony so given by the said Bessie L. Pick, under compulsory process and under the other circumstances and conditions aforesaid, and that said indictment and the proceedings upon which it was found were in violation of the Declaration of Rights and the Constitution and laws of the state of Maryland, by reason whereof any prosecution, conviction, or judgment upon or by virtue of said indictment would be in violation of the fundamental laws of the state of Maryland and of the rights and immunities guaranteed to this defendant thereby.

2. And because after she, the said Bessie L. Pick, had been arrested by reason of the matters and upon the charges set forth in said indictment, and taken into custody, and whilst she was under bail and without counsel or any professional aid or advice, and had been advised by the police authorities of the state, who had her in custody, that counsel was unnecessary inasmuch as the state intended to help her, she, the said Bessie L. Peck, was, by a subp na, duly directed and issued to and served upon her, commanded and required to appear before the grand jurors of the state of Maryland, for the body of the city of Baltimore, by which grand jurors said indictment was found, and without being warned that her testimony would be used against her, to testify before and unto the said grand jurors against herself and the said Frank D. Schultz, mentioned in said indictment and jointly indicted with her therein, with respect to the matters and facts referred to, alleged, and charged in said indictment, that said indictment was directly found upon said testimony so given by the said Bessie L. Pick, under compulsory process and under the other circumstances and conditions aforesaid, and that said indictment and the proceedings upon which it was found were in violation of the Constitution of the United States, and any prosecution thereof or thereupon and any conviction and judgment thereon would deprive this defendant, a citizen of the state the Maryland and of the United States, of her rights, privileges, and immunities without due process of law and against the law of the land, and deny her the equal protection of the laws."

On April 5, 1922, the state filed what is called an answer to the traverser's motion to quash the indictments. This answer is set out in the record, contains 11 long paragraphs, and covers over 20 pages of the record.

The traverser thereupon excepted to the answer filed by the state, upon the ground that it was bad in substance and insufficient in law.

Subsequently, the exceptions filed to the answer, and the motions to quash each indictment were heard by the court, and all of them were overruled.

From the action of the court in so holding, the traverser excepted, and these rulings form the basis of her first and second bills of exceptions.

Thereafter the traverser demurred to each and every count of the indictments against her, upon the ground that the indictments and each and every count thereof was bad in substance and...