State v. Morgan
| Decision Date | 28 June 1870 |
| Citation | 33 Md. 44 |
| Parties | THE STATE OF MARYLAND v. JOHN T. MORGAN. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
The cause was argued before BARTOL, C.J., BRENT, MAULSBY and ALVEY, JJ.
John Ritchie, State's Attorney, and Attorney General Jones, for the plaintiff in error.
Frederick J. Nelson and William B. Nelson for the defendant in error.
It appears, by the record, that the defendant in error was indicted for a felony by the grand jury of Frederick County. A motion was made to quash the indictment, and pending the motion, on the 20th of October, 1868, there was received and filed in the Circuit Court a nolle prosequi granted by the Governor, ordering "that all further proceedings against Morgan on the indictment should cease and determine upon payment of the costs accrued upon the indictment, and that no further prosecution be had or carried on against him for or on account of the said offenses."
Whereupon the counsel for the traverser moved the court to enter a " stet" in the case for the reasons
And the Circuit Court ordered and adjudged that the motion be granted, and that a " stet" be entered in the prosecution, and further proceedings therein be stayed.
From the action or judgment of the Circuit Court the State has brought this writ of error.
The error assigned by the Attorney-General, and for which he asks a reversal of the judgment, consists as alleged, in the Circuit Court considering the nolle prosequi as an absolute discharge of the accused from the prosecution, without the payment of the costs by him; and that as to these he became liable only to the civil or ordinary process of execution by fieri facias, etc.
The defendant in error has moved this court to quash or dismiss the writ of error for two reasons.
1st. Because the judgment or determination of the court below was not such a final and conclusive judgment as is subject to review on writ of error.
2nd. Because the point made by the Attorney-General is not presented by the record, or in other words because it does not affirmatively appear from the record that the condition precedent, upon which the nolle prosequi was made to depend, had not been performed by the payment of the costs as required.
It is well settled by the authorities that a nolle prosequi ordinarily does not operate as a pardon; but that the accused remains subject to be proceeded against by another indictment for the same offense. State v. McNiel, 3 Hawks, 183; Com. v. Wheeler, 2 Mass. 172; Com. v. Briggs, 7 Pick. 179.
And so where a stet has been entered in a criminal case, it is not ordinarily a final...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
White v. State
...not bar future prosecution under another charging document has the same effect as a dismissal without prejudice.” (quoting State v. Morgan, 33 Md. 44, 46 (1870) )).B. Hicks/Rule 4–271Next, Appellant charges that the State entered the nol pros of the district court statement of charges in ba......
-
Ward v. State
...same offense under a different charging document or different count. More than one hundred years ago, this Court stated in State v. Morgan, 33 Md. 44, 46 (1870): "It is well settled by the authorities that a nolle prosequi ordinarily does not operate as a pardon; but that the accused remain......
-
State v. Moulden
...drawn a sharp distinction between a nolle prosequi and a stet. Barrett v. State, 155 Md. 636, 638, 142 A. 96 (1928); State v. Morgan, 33 Md. 44, 46 (1870); Brady v. State, 36 Md.App. 283, 290, 374 A.2d 613 (1977); State v. Jones, 18 Md.App. 11, 33-37, 305 A.2d 177 (1973); Maryland Rule 782.......
-
State v. Simms
...of a nonsuit means that "the accused remains subject to be proceeded against by another indictment for the same offence." State v. Morgan, 33 Md. 44, 46 (1870). In Barrett, the Court explained that "[t]he abandonment of the prosecution [by entry of a nol pros] cancels that indictment and re......
-
Termination of Charging Process By Nolle Prosequi
...but it does not bar further prosecution of the defendant on a different or new charging document, Ward, 290 Md. at 83-84; State v. Morgan, 33 Md. 44 (1870), or on counts not nol prossed. Bynum v. State, 277 Md. 703 (1976). If the State intends to nol pros a degree of a crime charged, but to......