Maryland case law › State v. Rosen

State v. Rosen

181 Md. 167 (1942) · Court of Appeals of Maryland
Court of Appeals of MarylandDisposition: DismissedJohnson, J.✓ Good law
HoldingCharles Rosen, Louis Rosen, Florence Rosen, Meyer Seidel, and Gladys Wilson were indicted in Baltimore City — the three Rosens for selling bets on horse races and Seidel and Wilson for conducting a lottery.

169 Johnson, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Charles Rosen, Louis Rosen, Florence Rosen, Meyer Seidel and Gladys Wilson were indicted by the Grand Jury of Baltimore City, the three first named for selling bets on horse races and the two last named for conducting a lottery. The cases were later consolidated and the traversers elected to be tried together before the court. Later a search and seizure warrant was applied for against all parties to a judge of the Supreme Bench of Baltimore City, who found probable cause to exist and ordered the warrant to issue.

The parties were arraigned before the court, waived a jury trial and elected to be tried before the court, consenting to try all cases together. They thereupon on June 2 moved to quash the warrant, and the court held the matter sub curia until June 9, on which date he quashed the warrant, because as found by him it did not show probable cause to believe they were guilty of the crime. The court so stated and granted the motion and was informed by the State that the motion being granted they were powerless to proceed. The parties thereupon were found not guilty, and the State appeals.

Appellees have filed a motion to dismiss the appeals upon the well-known ground that they had once been acquitted and discharged upon a valid indictment; that the State has no right of appeal in such a case, unless such right is expressly conferred by statute, and cite: 2 Am. Jur., Appeal and Error, 984, Sec. 227; 17 C. J., Criminal Law, Sec. 3310; 24 C. J. S., Criminal Law, Sec. 1659; State v. Shields, 49 Md. 301 ; Cochran v. State, 119 Md. 539 , 87 A. 400 . In Maryland there exists no such permissive statute, and the court will not “notice exceptions by the State except in cases where the parties accused have been convicted and have also taken exceptions and appeals.” See also State v. King, 124 Md. 491, 496 , 92 A. 1041 , and

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