Gatewood v. State

Powers, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Bland Calvin Gatewood was convicted of perjury in a jury trial in the Criminal Court of Baltimore and, on appeal, we affirmed that conviction in an opinion filed November 9, 1971, Gatewood v. State, 13 Md. App. 317 , 283 A. 2d 193 . Appellant filed a petition in the Court of Appeals of Maryland for a writ of certiorari. By an order dated February 15, 1972, the Court of Appeals granted the petition and remanded the case to this Court, “without affirmance or reversal, for reconsideration in the light of Gatewood v. State, No. 172, September Term, 1971, decided January 19, 1972.” We now reconsider our opinion of November 9,1971.

The perjury of which appellant was convicted occurred during testimony he gave at a hearing held in the Criminal Court of Baltimore for forfeiture of a sum of money taken from his person at the time of his arrest for violation of the lottery laws. He had pleaded guilty to the lottery violation, and the forfeiture hearing was later held on a petition for a show cause order filed in the Criminal Court of Baltimore. In our previous opinion, we took the view that the forfeiture hearing was cognizable in the Criminal Court following disposition of the criminal charge. We said: ³¹⁶ “Appellant says that his conviction for perjury cannot be permitted to stand, because the alleged perjury occurred in a proceeding in which the court had no jurisdiction.

He argues that the Criminal Court of Baltimore lacked jurisdiction to hear the petition for forfeiture for two reasons. * * * Second, he argues that since the criminal matter was concluded, the only way the State could proceed for a forfeiture would be by a civil in rem proceeding, and the Criminal Court of Baltimore had no jurisdiction to try a civil proceeding. Neither of appellant’s two attacks on the jurisdiction of the Criminal Court to hear the forfeiture petition has merit. * * * The forfeiture petition is in no way a reopening of the criminal case, but is a subsequent phase of it, civil in form, but in its nature criminal. Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616 (1886), United States v. U. S. Coin & Currency, 401 U. S. 715 (1971). It is authorized by a special section of the criminal law.

Art. 27, § 264. That statute does not require the institution of any separate civil proceeding, but contemplates that the forfeiture proceeding will be a subsequent phase of the same case. It was here conducted under a caption showing the same indictment number as the lottery charge.” In the meantime, Gatewood had undertaken other proceedings which ultimately resulted in his presenting directly to the Court of Appeals the question of the jurisdiction of the Criminal Court of Baltimore to hear and determine the forfeiture proceeding against him. In an opinion filed January 19, 1972, Gatewood v. State, 264 Md. 301 , 285 A. 2d 623 , the Court of Appeals held that the orders of the Criminal Court of Baltimore in connection with the forfeiture were void.

The Court said, at pages 304 and 305: ³¹⁷ “Very recently we have had the opportunity to discuss in detail the history of property forfeitures in relation to criminal offenses. Pr. George’s Co. v. Blue Bird Cab, 263 Md. 655 , 284 A. 2d 203 (1971) ; State v. Greer, 263 Md. 692 , 284 A. 2d 233 (1971). In these cases we unequivocally stated that unless otherwise specifically provided by statute, forfeiture is a civil in rem proceeding.

In the case before us now, Art. 27, § 264 requires that forfeiture be preceded by a criminal conviction. However, this law does not make forfeiture an adjunct of the criminal case. It is conceded by the State that this provision does not explicitly authorize the Criminal Court to hear forfeiture proceedings. However, the appellee argues that unless forfeiture is specifically reserved by statutory mandate for civil courts, then criminal courts have jurisdiction.

In light of Blue Bird and Greer this position is untenable. Here, the Criminal Court of Baltimore, which by constitutional authority is not a civil court (Art. IV, §§27 and 30), decided both the criminal action against Gatewood and the forfeiture of the money, a civil question. All the hearings which pertain to the forfeiture conducted in the Criminal Court and any resulting decisions are void since that court lacked proper statutory jurisdiction over the subject matter.” Perjury is defined in Code, Art. 27, § 435, to include common law perjury as well as other acts which at common law constituted the lesser crime of