Bosco v. State

Adkins, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Peter Bosco, the appellant, was indicted for an attempt to bribe a justice of the peace, was tried, and convicted, and sentenced. This appeal is from that judgment. The appeal brings up the rulings of the trial court in overruling a demurrer to the indictment, in overruling a motion for a new trial, and in overruling a motion to strike out the judgment and sentence; and rulings on the admissibility of testimony.

The indictment was found under article 27, section 31, of the Code, and was as follows: “State of Maryland, Carroll County, to wit: “The grand jurors of the State of Maryland, for the body of Carroll County, do on their oaths and affirmations present that Peter Bosco, late of said county, on the second day of October, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and twenty-eight, at Carroll County, aforesaid, did unlawfully, wilfully and corruptly offer to give George E. Benson, who was then and there a justice of the peace of the State of Maryland, in and for Carroll County, having criminal jurisdiction, a certain envelope containing money ⁴⁰⁹ in an attempt to bribe tbe said George E. Benson, justice of tbe peace as aforesaid, to influence tbe said George E. Benson, justice of tbe peace as aforesaid, to decide in bis favor a certain prosecution then pending before tbe said George E. Benson, justice of tbe peace as aforesaid, against tbe said Peter Bosco on a charge of unlawfully selling intoxicating liquors within Oarroll County contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided and against the peace, government and dignity of the State. “Theo. E. Brown “The State’s Attorney for Oarroll County.” The principle contended for by appellant in support of his demurrer, as stated in his brief, is, that “where the statute which punishes an offense does not set forth all the elements necessary to constitute the offense, an indictment laid in the mere words of the statute is not sufficient in law; it must charge all the elements of the offense.” It is urged that knowledge on the part of the defendant of the official character of him to whom the bribe is offered is an essential element of the crime of bribery, and that the indictment in this case does not allege such knowledge and consequently is fatally defective. The indictment is laid in the language of the statute. Whatever may have been decided elsewhere, it would seem that in this state it is not open to question that a statutory offense is sufficiently charged if the indictment is laid in the language of the statute.

State v. Dent, 3 G. & J. 11 ; Parkinson v. State, 14 Md. 198 ; Cearfoss v. State, 42 Md. 403 ; Mincher v. State, 66 Md. 227 ; Smith v. State, 106 Md. 39 ; Curry v. State, 117 Md. 587 ; Keller v. State, 122 Md. 677 ; State v. Edwards,