Sturgill v. State

• Decision Date: 17 June 1948
• Docket Number: 187.
• Citation: 59 A.2d 763,191 Md. 75
• Parties: STURGILL v. STATE.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

59 A.2d 763

191 Md. 75

STURGILL v. STATE.

No. 187.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

June 17, 1948

Appeal from Circuit Court, Cecil County; J. Owen Knotts, Chief Judge, and William R. Horney and Floyd J. Kintner, Judges.

Robert J. Sturgill was convicted of violating Code Supp.1947, art 27, § 444A, penalizing the erection or maintenance of billboards etc., or information booths, intended to aid in solicitation of performance of marriages, and he appeals.

Judgment affirmed.

James F. Evans, of Elkton, for appellant.

Hall Hammond, Atty. Gen., J. Edgar Harvey, Asst. Atty. Gen Clarke Murphy, Jr., Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., and Henry L Constable, State's Atty., and J. Gifford Scarborough Asst. State's Atty., both of Elkton, for appellee.

Before MARBURY, C.J., and DELAPLAINE, COLLINS, GRASON, HENDERSON, and MARKELL, JJ.

MARBURY Chief Judge.

The appellant was indicted by the grand jury of Cecil County for violation of Section 444A of article 27 of the Annotated Code of Maryland. The indictment charges that the appellant, on September 1, 1947, 'did unlawfully erect and maintain billboards and other structures, signs, posters and display advertising, either as separate structures or otherwise, and information booths, intended to aid in the solicitation and performance of marriages.' Appellant demurred to this indictment. His demurrer was overruled, and after trial by the court he was found guilty and sentenced to pay a fine of $50 from which judgment and sentence he appeals here.

The basis of appellant's demurrer is that the indictment does not embody a distinct accusation of a single crime, but charges the defendant with a half dozen different, separate and distinct crimes, and that the appellant is not protected from a second trial for the same offense, because no one crime of which he is charged is set out with such particularity that it can be determined with what he is being charged. In support of this proposition, the cases of State v. Lassotovitch, 162 Md. 147, 159 A. 362, 81 A.L.R. 69, and Imbraguglia v. State, 184 Md. 174, 40 A.2d 329, are cited. These cases are authority for the general principle that the substantial components of the crime charged must be set out with such particularity that the accused knows with what he is charged and, if he is tried, the recitals may be sufficient to protect him from a second trial for the same offense.

The indictment in the case before us is in the exact words of the statute, except that the conjunction 'and' is used in the indictment in such places as the conjunction 'or' is found in the statute. The rule is that where an indictment is laid in the words of the statute, it will ordinarily be sufficient. State v. Petrushansky, 183 Md. 67, 36 A.2d 533 and cases there cited and discussed. The insertion of 'and' in place of 'or' is the proper method in a case where a number of different but allied things are forbidden by the statute. This Court has several times said that where 'or' is used in an indictment it will be defective, but where 'and' is used the indictment will be good, and the crime will be established at the trial by proof of any of the forbidden things...