State v. Wade

55 Md. 39, 1880 Md. LEXIS 130
CourtCourt of Appeals of Maryland
DecidedDecember 9, 1880
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 55 Md. 39 (State v. Wade) 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
State v. Wade, 55 Md. 39, 1880 Md. LEXIS 130 (Md. 1880).

Opinion

Alvey, J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

It requires but little to be said in regard to this case. The defendant in error has made a motion to dismiss the [41]*41assignment of errors, because, as be insists, there has been no final judgment of which error could be predicated. The record shows that the indictment was quashed by the Court below upon the motion of the defendant. That was a final termination of the prosecution upon the particular indictment, and the defendant was necessarily discharged from all further proceeding thereon. Whether the State may proceed on another indictment would depend upon the action of a future grand jury. It is the right of the State to have the defendant tried upon the present indictment, unless it be determined, in some legal and proper manner, that the indictment is legally insufficient. The motion to dismiss therefore must be overruled.

(Decided 9th December, 1880.)

It appears that the indictment was quashed for certain supposed defects, or legal insufficiencies, apparent upon its face, and which would, if the objections taken be well founded, be the proper subject of demurrer. This being so, the Code, Art. 30, sec. 82, provides that “ no indictment or presentment for felony or misdemeanor shall be quashed ” for certain specified causes or defects, “nor for any matter or cause which might have been a subject of demurrer to the indictment or presentment.” The Court, therefore, was plainly in error in its ruling upon the motion to quash. Cowman vs. The State, 12 Md., 250; Maguire vs. The State, 47 Md., 485. The question of the legal sufficiency of the indictment not being before us, we forbear expressing any opinion in regard to it, but shall simply reverse the judgment and remand the case for further proceedings.

Judgment reversed, and cause remanded.

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

Related

State v. James
100 A.2d 12 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 2001)
Irvin v. State
344 A.2d 418 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1975)
Irvin v. State
328 A.2d 329 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 1974)
State v. Barshack
80 A.2d 32 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1951)
Dixon v. Dixon
86 A. 1042 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1913)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
55 Md. 39, 1880 Md. LEXIS 130, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-wade-md-1880.