Snyder v. State

Marbury, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The appellant was tried in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, and found guilty of murder in the first degree without capital punishment. He was sentenced to life imprisonment in the Maryland Penitentiary. During the course of his trial, he filed a plea to the jurisdiction of the Court, stating that it ought not to take cognizance of the offense because he is a child under the age of 16 years.

The State demurred to this plea, and the demurrer was sustained by the Court. The appeal brings here the question of the' correctness of this action of the Court. This depends upon the construction of Chapter 1044 of the Acts of Assembly of 1945 which provides for a juvenile court in Montgomery County. It is contended that under that statute a child under the age of 16 years could not be tried in the Circuit Court on an indictment charging murder, but would have to be dealt with in the juvenile court.

Chapter 1044 establishes a Magistrate Court in Montgomery County to be known as “The Magistrate Court for Montgomery County for Juvenile Causes.” It does this by adding 19 new sections to Article 16 of the Code of Public Local Laws of Maryland. One of these sections, 547E gives the Magistrate for Juvenile Causes appointed under the act exclusive jurisdiction over other justices of the peace or trial magistrates in proceedings ¹⁶⁹ concerning any child within Montgomery County who is dependent, delinquent, neglected or is a minor without proper care or guardianship. The term “delinquent” is defined in Section 547F to mean and include “any child who violates any law or ordinance of the State or who commits any act which, if committed by an adult would be a crime not punishable by death, or by life imprisonment.” (Italics supplied). Section 547K provides in part “No adjudication upon the status of any child in the jurisdiction of the court shall operate to impose any of the civil disabilities ordinarily imposed by conviction, nor shall any child be deemed a criminal by reason of such adjudication, nor shall such adjudication be deemed a conviction of a crime, nor shall any child be charged with or convicted of a crime in any court, except that in the case when a child sixteen years of age or over is charged with an offense which would amount to a felony in the case of an adult, the judge, after full investigation, may waive jurisdiction and order such child held for trial under the regular procedure of the court which would have jurisdiction of such offense if committed by an adult.” (Italics supplied.) Under these sections, and particularly under Section 547K, the appellant contends that no person under the age of 18 (which is the age limit of a “child” under the definition contained in Section 547D) can be charged with or convicted of a crime in any court, and that the exception which permits a child 16 years of age or over, charged with a felony, to be tried by the Circuit Court after a waiver of jurisdiction by the Magistrate for Juvenile Causes, does not apply to him because he is under 16.

His contention, in brief, is that up to the age of 16, no person can be charged with a crime in Montgomery County, and that a person between the ages of 16 and 18 can only be tried for a crime if he is charged with a felony and the magistrate waives- jurisdiction. This construction would leave it in the power of the magistrate to determine whether any person under the age of 18 years could be tried for anything in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County. The appel ¹⁷⁰ lant cites, in support of this contention, the purposes of the enactment laid down in Section 547C and the statement therein that the provision shall be liberally construed to accomplish these purposes. He also cites a number of cases and articles in American Jurisprudence, Corpus Juris, and the Harvard Law Review, to show that the modern tendency is to establish special courts for juveniles wherein they are not tried as criminals, and no record is made of their offenses against the laws, but an effort is made to find what is wrong with their heredity or their environment, and to endeavor to correct the situation so as to prevent them from proceeding further on a downward path.

We are familiar with the modern trend in this respect, and it has received approval by the Legislature of this State through the passage not only of the act before us, but of other acts establishing juvenile courts. We must, however, determine what the Legislature meant in