NCJ Number
30057
Journal
Maryland Law Review Volume: 35 Issue: 2 Dated: (1975) Pages: 297-311
Date Published
1975
Length
15 pages
Annotation
IN LOHSS V. STATE (1974), THE MARYLAND COURT OF APPEALS DENIED THE STATE RIGHT TO APPEAL FROM DISMISSAL OF TWO INDICTMENTS BECAUSE THE STATE HAD, BY FAILING TO OBJECT TO THE DISMISSALS, WAIVED ITS RIGHT TO REVIEW.
Abstract
THIS NOTE EXPLORES THE JURISDICTIONAL QUESTION OF THE STATE'S RIGHT TO APPEAL THE DISMISSAL OF INDICTMENT BROUGHT ON BY A PRETRIAL GRANT OF A MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE. SEVERAL MARYLAND COURT RULINGS REGARDING THE STATE'S RIGHT TO APPEAL AND RIGHT TO APPEAL FROM THE GRANT OF A MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE ARE CITED AND DISCUSSED IN RELATION TO SECTIONS OF THE STATE CODE RELATING TO RIGHT OF APPEAL, SINCE UNDER MARYLAND LAW A PARTY'S RIGHT TO APPEAL IN BOTH CIVIC AND CRIMINAL CASES IS ENTIRELY STATUTORY. THE PROCEDURES FOR APPEAL BY THE PROSECUTION FOLLOWING THE ISSUANCE OF A SUPPRESSION ORDER IN OTHER STATES ARE ALSO REVIEWED. THE AUTHOR CONTENDS THAT SINCE, IN LOHSS, THE STATE'S CONSENT TO THE DISMISSALS WAS CONDITIONED ON THE TRIAL COURT'S GRANT OF DEFENDANTS' PRETRIAL MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE AND WAS, FAR FROM A VOLUNTARY ABANDONMENT OF PROSECUTION, NO MORE THAN AN ADMISSION OF THE STATE'S UNWILLINGNESS TO PROSECUTE THE CASE WITHOUT THE SUPPRESSED EVIDENCE. A STATUTORY REVISION IS NEEDED WHICH WOULD ALLOW THE STATE AN INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL FROM A PRETRIAL SUPPRESSION ORDER. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED)