State v. Barshack, 130
| Citation | 197 Md. 543,80 A.2d 32 |
| Decision Date | 12 April 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 130,130 |
| Parties | STATE v. BARSHACK. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Maryland |
Kenneth C. Proctor, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Hall Hammond Atty. Gen., Anselm Sodaro,State's Atty., Baltimore City, and Saul A. Harris, Asst. State's Atty., Baltimore City, Baltimore, on the brief), for appellant.
Maurice T. Siegel and Jeanette R. Siegel, Baltimore (Henry M. Siegel, Baltimore, on the brief), for appellee.
Before MARBURY, C. J., and DELAPLAINE, COLLINS, GRASON, HENDERSON and MARKELL, JJ.
Mike Barshack was indicted for accepting bets on horse racing in Baltimore City. Before the case came to trial he filed a motion to quash the search warrant, duly issued by Judge France upon affidavit as to probable cause, under which certain evidence had been seized. Upon hearing, the motion was granted by Judge Manley and the case continued. The State appeals here from Judge Manley's ruling. The appellee has moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that there was no final judgment entered in the case.
We think the motion must be granted. The case of State v. Jones, 182 Md. 368, 369, 34 A.2d 775 is directly in point. See also Warfield v. State, 116 Md. 599, 82 A. 1053; State v. Tag, 100 Md. 588, 60 A. 465; U. S. v. Marquette, 9 Cir., 270 F. 214; State v. Bass, 153 Tenn. 162, 281 S.W. 936; State v. Studer, 149 Wash. 210, 270 P. 430. The granting of the motion was no more final than would be any other ruling excluding testimony at a trial.
The state contends that although technically the granting of the motion does not finally terminate the proceedings, it does so as a practical matter and forecloses further proceedings under the indictment. By analogy, it is argued that appeals have been entertained from judgments entered after a demurrer to an indictment or motion to quash an indictment have been sustained. State v. Buchanan, 5 Har. & J. 317, 324; State v. Strauss, 49 Md. 288, 296; State v. Wade, 55 Md. 39; State v. McNally, 55 Md. 559, 566. These and other cases were recently reviewed in State v. Adams, Md., 76 A.2d 575, 577, 578, where it was said: 'The distinction between cases in which the State can appeal and those in which it cannot is not a distinction between decisions on questions on law and on questions of fact, or on the merits and not on the merits, but only the historical distinction between cases reviewable (under the Buchanan case) on writ of error and those not so reviewable. Furthermore, in a case turning on the validity of a search warrant or the legality of an arrest, the 'merits' usually consists only of the question whether or not the warrant was valid or the arrest lawful.'
In the Adams case there was a motion to suppress evidence obtained by a search warrant which presented no question that could have been raised...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McNeil v. State
...an order granting a defendant's motion to suppress evidence. 6 Lohss v. State, 272 Md. 113, 117, 321 A.2d 534 (1974); State v. Barshack, 197 Md. 543, 80 A.2d 32 (1951); State v. Adams, 196 Md. 341, 76 A.2d 575 (1950). Generally, any right to appeal that the State enjoys is grounded in a sta......
-
State ex rel. Sonner v. Shearin
...341, 76 A.2d 575 (1950)) that the granting of a motion to suppress evidence was not reviewable on appeal by the State, Cf. State v. Barshack, 197 Md. 543, 80 A.2d 32, it was recognized that there is an exception, to the general rule that the State cannot appeal to this Court in a criminal c......
-
Cardinell v. State
...220 Md. 584, 587, 155 A.2d 509, 511 (1959); Switkes v. John McShain, 202 Md. 340, 343-345, 96 A.2d 617, 618-620 (1953); State v. Barshack, 197 Md. 543, 80 A.2d 32 (1951); State v. Rosen, 181 Md. 167, 169, 28 A.2d 829, 829 (1942); Brooks v. Sprague, 157 Md. 160, 164, 145 A. 375, 377 (1929); ......
-
State v. Green
...Md. 584, 587, 155 A.2d 509, 511 (1959); Switkes v. John McShain, 202 @Md. 340, 343-345, 96 A.2d 617, 618-620 (1953); State v. Barshack, 197 Md. 543, 80 A.2d 32 (1951); State v. Rosen, 181 Md. 167, 169, 28 A.2d 829, 829 (1942); Brooks v. Sprague, 157 Md. 160, 164, 145 A. 375, 377 (1929); Hen......