Maryland case law › Robbins v. State

Robbins v. State

199 Md. 563 (1952) · Maryland Court of Appeals
Maryland Court of AppealsDisposition: AffirmedMarkell, J.✓ Good law
HoldingAppellant was convicted by a jury in the Circuit Court for violating sections 234 and 235 of Article 43 of the Maryland Code, as amended by Chapter 590 of the Acts of 1949, for canning and preparing canned tomatoes that contained added water.

Markell, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This is an appeal from conviction and sentence for violation of sections 234 and 235 of Article 43 of the Code, as amended by Chapter 590 of the Acts of 1949, by canning and preparing canned tomatoes which contained [added] water. The prosecution was begun by a warrant issued by a trial magistrate. Appellant prayed a jury trial and was found guilty by a jury in the circuit court.

Code, Art. 52, sec. 13. The judgment on the verdict is appealable to this court. Code, 1947 Supp., Art. 52, sec. 13A. The record contains no evidence or proceedings except the warrant and a motion to dismiss the warrant, which was denied.

The motion seems to be regarded by the parties as equivalent to a motion to dismiss an indictment, which has supplanted a demurrer. Criminal Rules of Practice and Procedure, Rule 3. We assume, without deciding, that the case may be presented on appeal in this way. As appellant’s only contention is that the Act of 1949 repealed the only statutory provision which made the offense charged a crime, the motion to dismiss seems to be a convenient way to present this contention.

The warrant charges that appellant in 1950 “did unlawfully can and prepare certain * * * canned tomatoes, that did contain more than only juice or juices from other sound tomatoes, to wit, water, in violation of * * * sections 234 and 235, Article 43, * * * as enacted by Chapter 590, Acts of 1949.” Sections 234 and 235, and also 236-238, originated in Chapter 408 of the Acts of 1920. Until 1949, section 234 provided, “234. On and after June 1, 1920, it shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to can or prepare in any way at any factory or plant of any kind in this State, any tomatoes or tomatoes with puree with which there is used or introduced into the can any liquid substance of any kind whatever except the juice or juices arising from the said tomatoes themselves after they have been properly peeled, trimmed, cored and prepared for canning as food.”. As amended by the 566 Act of 1949, section 234 provided, “234.

It shall be lawful for any person, firm or corporation to can or prepare in any way at any plant or factory of any kind in this State, tomatoes with the juice or juices arising from the said tomatoes themselves after they have been properly peeled, trimmed, cored and prepared for canning as food, or in their discretion, to can or prepare in any way tomatoes with tomato juice or juices only from other sound tomatoes, provided appropriate label declarations as required by Federal Regulations are attached to such cans.” Section 235 provided, “235. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to can or prepare in any way any goods or vegetable product purporting to be canned tomatoes [or canned tomatoes

This is a preview of Robbins v. State. About 50% of the opinion remains. Read the complete opinion in RecordCite.