Russell v. State

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Russell v. State

527 A.2d 34, 310 Md. 96, 1987 Md. LEXIS 245

CourtCourt of Appeals of Maryland

DecidedJune 26, 1987

Docket141, September Term, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 527 A.2d 34 (Russell 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.

Bluebook

Russell v. State, 527 A.2d 34, 310 Md. 96, 1987 Md. LEXIS 245 (Md. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

McAULIFFE, Judge.

Following his conviction on one count of child abuse by a jury in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Petitioner filed a timely motion for a new trial alleging, inter alia, error in the admission of evidence of acts occurring outside the dates specified in the bill of particulars furnished by the State. Judge Richard Latham granted Petitioner’s motion and set a date for a new trial. Before the case could be re-tried, however, Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the indictment contending that Judge Latham’s *98 decision amounted to a determination that the evidence at trial was legally insufficient, and that re-trial would violate his constitutional protection against double jeopardy. The motion was denied, and on the same day Petitioner filed an appeal from that ruling. 1 The Court of Special Appeals affirmed in an unreported opinion, and we granted certiorari. We have now learned that the Petitioner died on May 3, 1987.

In Jones v. State, 302 Md. 153, 486 A.2d 184 (1985), we held that where a petitioner’s conviction had been affirmed on direct appeal and he died pending disposition of the case by this Court, the proper course of action was dismissal of the writ of certiorari. Here, however, there has never been a judgment of conviction, and the legal posture of the Petitioner following the granting of a new trial has been that of an accused awaiting trial. See Hobbs v. State, 231 Md. 533, 191 A.2d 238, cert. denied, 375 U.S. 914, 84 S.Ct. 212, 11 L.Ed.2d 153 (1963). Where the accused dies while awaiting prosecution or while a direct appeal is pending, the prosecution will abate, and if there has been a conviction it will be vacated. We shall therefore vacate the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals and direct that the case be remanded to the Circuit Court for Montgomery County for dismissal of the indictment.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS VACATED; CASE REMANDED TO THAT COURT WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO REMAND TO THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY FOR DISMISSAL OF THE INDICTMENT. COSTS TO BE PAID BY PETITIONER.

1

. Unlike most other interlocutory orders, the denial of a motion to dismiss based on double jeopardy grounds is immediately appealable. Huffington v. State, 302 Md. 184, 187, n. 2, 486 A.2d 200, cert. denied, — U.S.-, 106 S.Ct. 3315, 92 L.Ed.2d 745 (1985); Evans v. State, 301 Md. 45, 49, n. 2, 481 A.2d 1135 (1984); Bowling v. State, 298 Md. 396, 401, n. 4, 470 A.2d 797 (1984).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

McAULIFFE, Judge.

Following his conviction on one count of child abuse by a jury in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Petitioner filed a timely motion for a new trial alleging, inter alia, error in the admission of evidence of acts occurring outside the dates specified in the bill of particulars furnished by the State. Judge Richard Latham granted Petitioner’s motion and set a date for a new trial. Before the case could be re-tried, however, Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the indictment contending that Judge Latham’s *98 decision amounted to a determination that the evidence at trial was legally insufficient, and that re-trial would violate his constitutional protection against double jeopardy. The motion was denied, and on the same day Petitioner filed an appeal from that ruling. 1 The Court of Special Appeals affirmed in an unreported opinion, and we granted certiorari. We have now learned that the Petitioner died on May 3, 1987.

In Jones v. State, 302 Md. 153, 486 A.2d 184 (1985), we held that where a petitioner’s conviction had been affirmed on direct appeal and he died pending disposition of the case by this Court, the proper course of action was dismissal of the writ of certiorari. Here, however, there has never been a judgment of conviction, and the legal posture of the Petitioner following the granting of a new trial has been that of an accused awaiting trial. See Hobbs v. State, 231 Md. 533, 191 A.2d 238, cert. denied, 375 U.S. 914, 84 S.Ct. 212, 11 L.Ed.2d 153 (1963). Where the accused dies while awaiting prosecution or while a direct appeal is pending, the prosecution will abate, and if there has been a conviction it will be vacated. We shall therefore vacate the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals and direct that the case be remanded to the Circuit Court for Montgomery County for dismissal of the indictment.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS VACATED; CASE REMANDED TO THAT COURT WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO REMAND TO THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY FOR DISMISSAL OF THE INDICTMENT. COSTS TO BE PAID BY PETITIONER.

1

. Unlike most other interlocutory orders, the denial of a motion to dismiss based on double jeopardy grounds is immediately appealable. Huffington v. State, 302 Md. 184, 187, n. 2, 486 A.2d 200, cert. denied, — U.S.-, 106 S.Ct. 3315, 92 L.Ed.2d 745 (1985); Evans v. State, 301 Md. 45, 49, n. 2, 481 A.2d 1135 (1984); Bowling v. State, 298 Md. 396, 401, n. 4, 470 A.2d 797 (1984).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

527 A.2d 34, 310 Md. 96, 1987 Md. LEXIS 245, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/russell-v-state-md-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack