State v. Brown

• Citation: 16 A. 722
• Parties: STATE v. BROWN.
• Decision Date: 21 February 1889
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

16 A. 722

STATE v. BROWN.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

February 21, 1889

Error to circuit court, Charles county.

Washington Brown was indicted for illegal voting. A demurrer to the indictment was sustained, and defendant discharged. The state's attorney files a petition in error.

Argued before ALVEY, C.J., and MILLER, ROBINSON, IRVING, STONE BRYAN, YELLOTT, and MCSHERRY, JJ.

Atty. Gen. Whyte and L. A. Wilmer, for appellant.

A Posey, for appellee.

ALVEY C.J.

The defendant in error was indicted for casting an illegal vote at the general state election of 1887, knowing himself to be disqualified to vote under the constitution of the state. The indictment charges that the traverser was convicted of larceny on the 28th of November, 1882, and was sentenced by the court to confinement in the house of correction for two months, and that he was not pardoned by the governor; and that the traverser was, at the time of conviction and sentence, above the age of 21 years. The indictment was intended to be founded upon the disqualification prescribed by the constitution of the state, (article 1, § 2,) which declares that "no person above the age of twenty-one years, convicted of larceny or other infamous crime, unless pardoned by the governor, shall ever thereafter be entitled to vote at any election in this state." It is not charged that the traverser was above the age of 21 years at the time of the commission of the crime; nor is it shown by the record whether the traverser was registered as a voter before or after his conviction, or whether he was ever registered at all. The traverser demurred to the indictment and the demurrer was sustained, and the traverser discharged. It appears that, three days after the judgment on the demurrer, an opinion of the court was filed, referring to what was supposed to be the defects in the indictment, or rather the defects or omissions in the law under which the indictment was framed. The state's attorney filed a petition in error, but wholly failed to specify or assign any particular error as that complained of by the state, as required by rule 1 (Code, art. 5, § 4,) for the regulations of appeals and writs of error in this court. The case has been submitted on brief by the attorney general for the state, but there has been neither argument nor brief furnished on the part of the traverser; and, as the case is not properly before us upon proper assignment of error, ...