Merritt v. State
This text of 156 A.2d 228 (Merritt v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Maryland primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
In this appeal are involved two charges of larceny presented in two indictments, one charging the accused with grand larceny, the other with theft, or petit larceny. The *119 defendant appeared in court without counsel, and was tried on the same day that Hill v. State, infra, was decided by this Court. The record fails affirmatively to show a compliance with Rule 723 b and c; consequently, under the authority of Hill v. State, 218 Md. 120, Bryant v. State, 218 Md. 151, and Williams v. State, 220 Md. 180, the judgments and sentences must be reversed. With this ruling in his favor, we deem it unnecessary to consider the other points raised in the appellant’s brief.
Judgments reversed, and cases remanded for a new trial, the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore to pay the costs.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
156 A.2d 228, 221 Md. 118, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/merritt-v-state-md-1984.