State v. Warren

• Decision Date: 14 March 1893
• Citation: 26 A. 500,77 Md. 121
• Parties: STATE v. WARREN.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

26 A. 500

77 Md. 121

STATE v. WARREN.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

March 14, 1893

Error to circuit court, Montgomery county.

Indictment of Nelson Warren for larceny.A demurrer to the indictment was sustained, and the state brings error.Reversed.

Argued before ALVEY, C.J., and ROBINSON, BRYAN, McSHERRY, FOWLERBRISCOE, and PAGE, JJ.

John P Poe, Atty. Gen., and Ed. C. Peter, for the State.

Tho.Anderson and Wm. Veirs Bouic, Jr., for defendant in error.

ROBINSON J.

The question raised in this case is one of some importance, in criminal pleading.The indictment contains two counts, in each of which the prisoner is charged with stealing several sums of money at the same time, belonging to several owners and the question is whether these counts are bad for duplicity.Now, by duplicity in criminal pleading is meant the joinder of two or more distinct and separate offenses in the same count.The object of all pleading, civil and criminal, is to present a single issue in regard to the same subject-matter, and it would be against this fundamental rule to permit two or more distinct offenses to be joined in the same count.So, the question really comes to this: Does the stealing of several articles of property at the same time belonging to several owners, constitute one offense, or as many separate offenses as these different owners of the property stolen?And, though the question is a narrow one, it is at the same time one in regard to which there is some conflict of opinion.Upon principle, however, it would seem clear that the stealing of several articles at the same time whether belonging to the same person or to several persons, constituted but one offense.It is but one offense because the act is one continuous act,--the same transaction; and, the gist of the offense being the felonious taking of the property, we do not see how the legal quality of the act is in any manner affected by the fact that the property stolen, instead of belonging to one person, is the several property of different persons.The offense is an offense against the public, and the prosecution is conducted, not in the name of the owner of the property, nor in his behalf, but in the name of the state, the primary object being to protect the public against such offenses by the punishment of the offender; and, although it is necessary to set out in the indictment the ownership of the property, this the law requires in order that the prisoner may be informed as to the precise nature of the offense charged against him, and further to enable him to plead a former conviction or acquittal, in bar of a subsequent prosecution for the same offense.So, it seems clear to us, on principle, that the taking of several articles of property under such circumstances constitutes but one felony, and this view is fully...