Mechanic v. State

Urner, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The indictment in this case contained two counts. The first charged the defendant with the statutory crime of having had carnal knowledge of a named female who was then between the ages of fourteen and sixteen years. By the second count an assault and battery on the same female was charged.

The trial before the lower court, sitting as a jury, resulted in a conviction and a sentence of three months’ imprisonment in the Maryland House of Correction. The sentence was imposed on December 28th, 1931, but its execution was suspended until January 9th, 1932. An appeal was entered on the latter date to this court, although the record showed no rulings whatever which could be made the subject of appellate review. There had been no demurrer, motion, or objection of any kind by which a reviewable question was. attempted to be raised.

But subsequently, on April 1st,. 1932, the defendant filed a motion to strike out the verdict: and judgment. At the hearing on that motion certain testimony was produced, in regard to which several exceptions were reserved. The motion was overruled, and from that action a second appeal was entered. No reliance is placed in the appellant’s brief on any of the evidence exceptions taken by him at the hearing on the motion.

The principal ground of the motion was that the statement of the trial judge in rendering the verdict was a conclusion indicating a merger of the two counts -in the indictment, which, as argued for the defendant, could not be validly accomplished by the verdict because both counts charged misdemeanors. That contention is based upon the following ⁴³⁰ language used by the lower court after reviewing the evidence: “He bad liquor there and he used it to debauch this girl, and I therefore find beyond a question of a doubt, and to a moral certainty, that he had intercourse with her when she was between the ages of fourteen and sixteefi, which would be a verdict of guilty on the first count of the indictment, which count carries with it the assault count anyhow.” The docket entries show a general verdict of “Guilty.” A notation of “V. — G. 1” on the back of the indictment was explained by the deputy clerk who made it as meaning a verdict of guilty on the first count. No question was raised as to the form of the verdict when it was announced by the court or until the lapse of more than three months after its rendition. The verdict was explicit in finding the defendant guilty of the crime