State v. Barshack

Henderson, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Mike Barshack was indicted for accepting bets on horse racing in Baltimore City. Before the case came to trial he filed a motion to quash the search warrant, duly issued by Judge France upon affidavit as to probable cause, under which certain evidence had been seized. Upon hearing, the motion was granted by Judge Manley and the case continued.

The State appeals here from Judge Manley’s ruling. The appellee has moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground that there was no final judgment entered in the case. We think the motion must be granted. The case of State v. Jones, 182 Md. 368, 369 , 34 A. 2d 775 is directly in point.

See also Warfield v. State, 116 Md. 599 , 82 A. 1053 ; State v. Tag, 100 Md. 588 , 60 A. 465 ; U. S. v. Marquette, 270 F. 214 (C. C. A. 9th) ; State v. Bass, 153 Tenn. 162 , 281 S. W. 936 ; State v. Studer, 149 Wash. 210 , 270 P. 430 . The granting of the motion was no more final than would be any other ruling excluding testimony at a trial. The State contends that although technically the granting of the motion does not finally terminate the proceedings, it does so as a practical matter and forecloses further proceedings under the indictment. By analogy, it is argued that appeals have been entertained from ⁵⁴⁵ judgments entered after a demurrer to an indictment or motion to quash an indictment have been sustained.

State v. Buchanan, 5 Har. & G. 317, 324; State v. Strauss, 49 Md. 288, 296 ; State v. Wade, 55 Md. 39 ; State v. McNally, 55 Md. 559, 566 . These and other cases were recently reviewed in State v. Adams, 196 Md. 341, 349-50 , 76 A. 2d 575, 577, 578 , where it was said: “The