Maryland case law › Smith v. State

Smith v. State

119 Md. 564 (1913) · Maryland Court of Appeals
Maryland Court of AppealsDisposition: ReversedBriscoe, J.✓ Good law
HoldingThe traverser was indicted in the Criminal Court of Baltimore on December 29, 1911, for violating the State Primary Election Law.

Briscoe, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The material questions presented on the record in this caso were considered and decided by us, in the cases of Cochran v. State and Wagner v. State, ante, pages 539 and 559. In view of the fact, that the judgment in this case will have to be reversed and a new trial awarded, we will now proceed to consider those questions not raised on the appeal 565 in the Cochran and Wagner cases, supra, but presented on this record. The traverser in this case was indicted on the 29th day of December, 1911, in the Criminal Court of Baltimore, for a violation of the State Primary Election Law.

He was acquitted on the first to the ninth counts inclusive of the indictment and convicted on the tenth count, with a recommendation of mercy. He was sentenced to one year in the Baltimore City Jail and to pay a fine of five hundred dollars and costs. From this judgment, he has brought this appeal. The rulings of the Court on the demurrer, and on the various motions interposed in the course of tl^,trial and on the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth and eleventh bills of exceptions, present almost the identical questions passed upon by us, in the Cochran and Wagner cases, supra, and we find it unnecessary to discuss them on this record.

The determination of the questions raised in those cases are conclusive as to the same questions presented on this record. The twelfth and thirteenth exceptions relate to certain statements and instructions by the Court, to the jury, before they retired to consider their verdict, and they are set out in the record. After the Court’s instruction to the jury as set out in the eleventh bill of exceptions, and before the jury retired to consider the case, one of. the jurors asked the Court the following question: (Juror) : May I ask a question? (The Court) : Yes.

(Juror) : Did this man get any instruction from anybody? (The Court) : Yes, from the Board of Election Supervisors. To this statement of the Court to the

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