Jackson v. State

Delaplaine, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The appellants in this case were indicted, tried, convicted, and sentenced in the Circuit Court for Cecil County for keeping a disorderly house. Before entering their pleas of not guilty, the appellants demurred to the indictment on the ground that it contained two separate and distinct charges in one count: (1) keeping a disorderly house; and (2) keeping at said house alcoholic beverages for the purpose of sale and delivery within this State, without a license therefor. The trial court overruled the demurrers, and the correctness of that ruling is the question before this court.

The count avers that the appellants, on April 16th, 1938, and thence continually until the day of the finding of this indictment, “did keep and maintain a certain common, ill-governed and disorderly house, as a common place of business, for the sale of alcoholic beverages, to wit: whiskey; and in said place during the days and ⁴⁰¹ times aforesaid, did then and there further unlawfully keep and suffer to be kept on their said premises, in their possession and under their charge and control for the purpose of sale and delivery within this State, certain alcoholic beverages, to wit: whiskey, without a license therefor, as provided by law, did take upon themselves to keep and maintain and the said house did then and there, at the days and times aforesaid, keep as a common house for the unlawful possession and sale of whiskey; and in the said house, at the days and times aforesaid, certain idle and ill-disposed persons to the Jurors aforesaid unknown, to assemble separately and together, for the purposes aforesaid, unlawfully did cause and procure, and did therein openly and unlawfully sell said alcoholic beverages to any and all persons calling for the same, in and about their said house, at all times both at day and night, and on all days, both Sundays and other days, they, the said William Melvin Jackson and Lenna Jackson, unlawfully did permit and suffer, to the common nuisance of all the people and against the peace, government and dignity of the State.” The general rule of the common law is that an indictment should not charge the commission of two or more substantive offenses in the same count, and in the event that it does so it is objectionable because of duplicity. 22 Cyc. 376. Weinstein v. State, 146 Md. 80 , 125 A. 889 . But it is equally well recognized that a count is not objectionable for charging several related acts which enter into and constitute