Richardson v. State

• Citation: 200 A. 362,175 Md. 216
• Decision Date: 14 June 1938
• Docket Number: 12.
• Parties: RICHARDSON v. STATE.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

200 A. 362

175 Md. 216

RICHARDSON v. STATE.

No. 12.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

June 14, 1938

Appeal from Circuit Court, Wicomico County; Benjamin A. Johnson Judge.

Marjorie Richardson was convicted of selling whisky without a license and she appeals.

Affirmed.

Herbert R. O'Conor, Atty. Gen., and Chas. T. LeViness, 3d, Asst Atty. Gen., and Rex A. Taylor, State's Atty., of Salisbury, for the State.

Argued before BOND, C.J., and URNER, OFFUTT, PARKE, SLOAN, MITCHELL and SHEHAN, JJ.

URNER Judge.

The indictment in this case charged that the defendant 'did unlawfully sell to Harvey R. Baker on or about the 18th day of March, 1938, in Wicomico County, a certain alcoholic beverage, to-wit: whiskey,' without having obtained a license as prescribed by law. The statute thus alleged to have been violated is included in Section 2 of Article 2B of the Code (1935 Supplement) and provides, in part, that 'no person shall * * * sell or suffer to be * * * sold * * * within this State any alcoholic beverage without a license', for which provision is made in subsequent sections of that Article. A demurrer to the indictment was overruled, and the case then proceeded to a trial which resulted in the defendant's conviction. The record on this appeal presents for review the ruling of the trial Court on the demurrer and its disposition of certain objections as to the admissibility of evidence.

In Wicomico County sales of all beverages containing more than fourteen per cent. of alcohol by volume are permitted by the law to be made in sealed packages at dispensaries to be established by a county board of liquor control. Code, Art. 2B, Sec. 48B. The validity of the indictment is questioned because it omits to state that the alleged sale was not made by the defendant as an employee of the Liquor Control Board at one of its dispensaries. But there is no sufficient basis for that theory. The separate provision for dispensary sales does not bear such a relation to the prohibitory clause under which the defendant is prosecuted as to create an exception which it was necessary for the indictment to negative. Howes v. State, 141 Md. 532, 119 A. 297; Foxwell v. State,

146 Md. 90, 125 A. 893; State v. Jenkins, 124 Md. 376, 92 A. 773; Ruggles v. State, 120 Md. 553, 87 A. 1080; Weber v. State, 116 Md. 402, 81 A. 606.

Another suggested objection is that the indictment is defective because of its omission to mention the price at which the defendant is accused of making the alleged illegal sale of whiskey. It is a settled rule of criminal pleading in this State that an indictment for a statutory offense is not demurrable if it follows the language of the statute and is sufficiently specific to inform the defendant of the particular charge upon which he is to be tried. Hayes v. State, 171 Md. 94, 188 A. 24; State v. Lassotovitch, 162 Md. 147, 159 A. 362, 81 A.L.R. 69; Abramson v. State, 167 Md. 531, 175 A. 593; Wentz v. State, 159 Md. 161, 150 A. 278; Bosco v. State, 157 Md. 407, 146 A. 238. The present indictment conforms to that standard. In other cases of illegal sales, which this Court has had occasion to consider, indictments which omitted to specify the price realized from the sales were sustained as against demurrers, and no point appears to have been made as to such omission. Brunner v. State, 154 Md. 655, 141 A. 346; Hicken v. State, 146 Md. 251, 126 A. 123; Howes v. State, supra.

There were eight evidence exceptions reserved at the...