Opinion ID: 2156512
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The State's Right to Appeal in Criminal Cases

Text: The origins in Maryland of the right to appeal in criminal cases are shadowy. Judge Eldridge, examining the State's right to appeal in criminal cases in his dissent in Cardinell v. State, 335 Md. 381, 644 A.2d 11 (1994), overruled by State v. Green, 367 Md. 61, 785 A.2d 1275 (2001), discovered only one reported pre-Revolutionary War case, Jenifer v. Lord Proprietary, 1 H. & McH. 535 (Provincial Court 1774), which touched upon the right to appeal in criminal cases generally. In that case, Daniel Jenifer, the former Sheriff of Charles County, was convicted of receiving unlawful fees as Sheriff and was fined the value of the fees plus 5,000 pounds of tobacco. Id. at 535-36. He filed an appeal in the Provincial Court, and argument was heard during the Court's April Term, 1770. Id. at 536-37. Attorney General Jenings contended that there was no right to appeal in criminal cases under English statutes, common law, or the Act of 1713; [4] and as such, Jenifer's appeal should have been dismissed. Id. at 536-38. Although the Court continued the case until its September Term, 1774, it ultimately dismissed the appeal, apparently holding that no appeal would lie. Id. at 538. After the Revolution, Ch. 87 of the Acts of 1785, Section 6 granted the full power and right to appeal to any party or parties aggrieved by any judgment or determination of any county court in any civil suit or action, or any prosecution for the recovery of any penalty, [or] fine.... 1785 Md. Laws, Chap. 87, § 6. The first reported criminal case after the Act of 1785 appears to be Peter v. The State, 4 H. & McH. 3 (General Court 1797), in which the General Court permitted an appeal by the defendant, on writ of error, who argued that the indictment on its face violated a statute. Id. Without opinion, the Court reversed the judgment of the County Court, evidently finding that the writ of error would lie and that the defendant's position was meritorious. Id. at 3-4. Five years later, in Cummings v. The State, 1 H. & J. 340 (General Court 1802), the availability of a writ of error was argued again before the General Court, but the writ was quashed on a procedural ground. Id. at 341, 344. This Court's first discussion of this issue in a reported opinion was in Queen v. The State, 5 H. & J. 232 (June Term 1821), in which we held that an appeal or writ of error was authorized in a criminal case to review a question of law apparent on the record even though a bill of exceptions was not authorized. Id. at 233-34. In its rationale, this Court stated that [t]he act of 1785 does not give a bill of exceptions in criminal cases there enumerated, but that, if error appeared on the record, then the Legislature gave the party complaining an election to carry up the case either by writ of error or appeal.... Id. at 234. In the December 1821 Term, this Court in The State v. Buchanan, et al., 5 H. & J. 317 (1821), also determined that the State could pursue a writ of error where the county court quashed the indictment. Id. at 329-30. The extensive right of appeal contained in the Act of 1785 was maintained in later statutes. Code (1860), Art. 5, Section 3, permitted any party to appeal to the Court of Appeals in any prosecution for the recovery of any penalty [or] fine, and Section 4 provided that writs of error may be sued out in civil or criminal cases.... Code (1860), Art. 5, § 3. Ch. 316 of the Acts of 1872 added a new section to Article 5 of the Code, which provided as follows: Sec. 2. In all trials upon any indictment or presentment in any court of this State having criminal jurisdiction, it shall be lawful for any party accused, or for the State's Attorney, on behalf of the State of Maryland, to except to any ruling or determination of the court, and to tender to the court a bill of exceptions, which shall be signed and sealed by the court ...; and the party tendering such bill of exceptions, may appeal from such ruling or determination to the Court of Appeals.... [ [5] ] 1872 Md. Laws, Chap. 316, § 2. This extensive general right of appeal in criminal cases granted by statute to both the defendant and the State continued until 1957. See, e.g., Code (1888), Art. 5 §§ 77 and 78; Code (1924), Art. 5 §§ 86 and 87; Code (1939), Art. 5 §§ 86-88; Code (1951), Art. 5, §§ 86-89. Nevertheless, although the State appeared to possess broad appellate rights under the statutes, the general tendency of decisions by this Court was to preclude a right to appeal by the State. See, e.g., State v. Adams, 196 Md. 341, 350-51, 76 A.2d 575, 578-79 (1950) (dismissing the State's appeal because of a lack of explicit statutory authority); State v. Lingner, 183 Md. 158, 165, 36 A.2d 674, 677 (1944) (holding that the State had no right to appeal a verdict based on the denial of its demurrer to the defendant's motion); State v. Jones, 182 Md. 368, 369-70, 34 A.2d 775, 776 (1943) (holding that the State could not appeal from a motion to quash because it was a pretrial motion, and therefore, the trial court's ruling did not appear in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals); State v. Rosen, 181 Md. 167, 169, 28 A.2d 829, 829 (1942) (holding that the State may not file a bill of exceptions [6] where the defendant does not do so as well); State v. Shields, 49 Md. 301, 302 (1878) (same). The 1957 recodification of the Maryland Code restricted the State's right to appeal in criminal cases and for the first time codified the common law prohibition against State appeals from acquittals in criminal cases. Chapter 399 of the Acts of 1957, Section 14 provided: The State may appeal to the Court of Appeals from a final order or judgment granting a motion to dismiss, or quashing or dismissing any indictment, information, presentment or inquisition in a criminal action, but the State shall have no right of appeal in any criminal action where the defendant has been tried and acquitted. Md.Code (1957), Art. 5 § 14. The language of this section remained unchanged, except for the change from the Court of Appeals to the Court of Special Appeals by Chapter 12 of the Acts of 1966, Section 1, until the recodification in 1973. The 1973 recodification of Article 5, Section 14 as Md.Code (1973), § 12-302(c) of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article retained the majority of the language in Article 5, Section 14, but excised the clause prohibiting the State's access to appellate review where the defendant was tried and convicted. 1973 Md. Laws, Chap. 2, 1st Sp. Sess., § 1. Section 12-302(c) of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article provided: In a criminal case, the State may appeal only from a final judgment granting a motion to dismiss or quashing or dismissing any indictment, information, presentment, or inquisition in a criminal case. Md.Code (1973), § 12-302(c) of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article. The Revisor's Note explained that the language concerning the State's inability to appeal from an acquittal was deleted because the State may only appeal in the limited situations set forth in [Section 12-302(c) of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article] in any event. 1973 Md. Laws, Chap. 2, 1st Sp. Sess., § 1, Revisor's Note. In 1976, the General Assembly augmented the State's right to appeal in criminal cases to permit an appeal from the failure to impose a mandatory sentence. Chapter 49 of the Acts of 1976, Section 1 [7] revised the language of Section 12-302(c) to state: In a criminal case, the State may appeal [only]: (1) from a final judgment granting a motion to dismiss or quashing or dismissing any indictment, information, presentment, or inquisition [in a criminal case]; and (2) from a final judgment if the State alleges that the trial judge failed to impose the sentence specifically mandated by the Code. 1976 Md. Laws, Chap. 49, § 1. The General Assembly again extended the ability of the State to appeal in criminal cases in 1982 when it enacted Section 12-302(c)(3)(i) of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, which provided that: In a case involving a crime of violence as defined in § 643B [ [8] ] of Article 27, the State may appeal from a decision of a trial court that excludes evidence offered by the State or requires the return of property alleged to have been seized in violation of the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of Maryland, or the Maryland Declaration of Rights. 1982 Md. Laws, Chap. 493. Seven years later, the General Assembly broadened the State's right to appeal to include cases under §§ 286 and 286A of Article 27 [9] under Section 12-302(c)(3)(i) of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article. 1989 Md. Laws, Chap. 5, § 1. [10] FINALLY, IN CHAPTEr 141 of thE acts of 2003, secTion 1, the geNeral Assembly enacted another expansion of the State's right to appeal in criminal cases by revising Section 12-302(c)(2) to permit the State to appeal where it alleges that the trial judge imposed or modified a sentence in violation of the Maryland Rules. 2003 Md. Laws, Chap. 141, § 1. Thus, Section 12-302(c) of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article currently provides: (c) Criminal Case.  In a criminal case, the State may appeal as provided in this subsection. (1) The State may appeal from a final judgment granting a motion to dismiss or quashing or dismissing any indictment, information, presentment, or inquisition. (2) The State may appeal from a final judgment if the State alleges that the trial judge: (i) Failed to impose the sentence specifically mandated by the Code, or (ii) Imposed or modified a sentence in violation of the Maryland Rules. (3)(i) In a case involving a crime of violence as defined in § 14-101 of the Criminal Law Article, and in cases under §§ 5-602 through 5-609 and §§ 5-612 through 5-614 of the Criminal Law Article, the State may appeal from a decision of a trial court that excludes evidence offered by the State or requires the return of property alleged to have been seized in violation of the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of Maryland, or the Maryland Declaration of Rights. Md.Code (1973, 2002 Repl.Vol., 2004 Cum.Supp.), § 12-302(c) of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article. During this period in which the statutory bases for the State's right to appeal in criminal cases was in flux, this Court was called upon to address its common law roots. In 1994, in Cardinell v. State, 335 Md. 381, 644 A.2d 11 (1994), overruled by State v. Green, 367 Md. 61, 785 A.2d 1275 (2001), the State appealed from the trial court's grant of the defendant's untimely motion for revision of sentence under Maryland Rule 4-345(b). [11] Cardinell, 335 Md. at 383, 644 A.2d at 12. This Court determined that the State possessed a common law right to appeal in criminal cases and that the language of Section 12-302(c) of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article did not reflect a clear intent by the Legislature to abrogate the common law. Id. at 394, 644 A.2d at 17. [12] The Court examined the legislative history of the section, and its predecessors, and concluded that there was no evidence that the General Assembly intended to strip the State of the right to appeal. Id. at 396, 644 A.2d at 18. The Court examined the Revisor's Note to Section 12-302 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article and interpreted its statement that the State may only appeal in the limited situations set forth in the section in any event to mean that the section was not intended to be an absolute limitation on the State's right to appeal. Id. at 395, 644 A.2d at 18. The Court reasoned that recodification of statutes is presumed to be for the purpose of clarity rather than to change their meaning. Id. at 407, 644 A.2d at 24. Moreover, the Court stated that the deletion of only from the Section in 1976 further indicated the legislature's intention to codify the State's right to appeal in certain cases, but not to preclude its appeal in the situations not enumerated. Id. Therefore, the Cardinell court determined that the State possessed a continuing common law right to appeal an action that was outside the jurisdiction of the lower court. Id. at 398, 644 A.2d at 19. In 2001, we had the opportunity to revisit the issue of the scope of the State's ability to appeal in criminal cases in State v. Green, 367 Md. 61, 785 A.2d 1275 (2001). In that case, the State appealed from the granting of a criminal defendant's untimely filed motion to revise his statutorily mandated sentence, essentially the same issue raised in Cardinell. Id. at 65-66, 785 A.2d at 1277. Relying upon recent cases construing the appeals statutes, Chief Judge Bell, writing for this Court, stated that questions of appealability have today become entirely governed by statutes. Green, 367 Md. at 77, 785 A.2d at 1284, citing Prince George's County v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 358 Md. 166, 173, 747 A.2d 647, 651 (2000) (dismissing an appeal from the trial court's judgment reviewing a decision of the Prince George's Human Relations Commission because neither the specific statutory language at issue nor any other provision of law expressly authorized it); Gisriel v. Ocean City Board of Supervisors of Elections, 345 Md. 477, 489, 693 A.2d 757, 763 (1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1053, 118 S.Ct. 702, 139 L.Ed.2d 645 (1998) (explaining that the enactment of Section 12-301 abrogated prior law, and holding that an appeal was not authorized under the general grant of the right to appeal contained in Section 12-301 because a more specific provision applied). Moreover, we again expressed our concern that the invocation of common law principles in an area specifically addressed by the General Assembly might violate the constitutional separation of powers principle. Green, 367 Md. at 77, 785 A.2d at 1284. Furthermore, we stated [a]lthough the appeals statutes ... contain no specific words of abrogation ... the appeals statutes repealed and replaced the prior statutory scheme. Id. at 78, 785 A.2d at 1284. In addition, the structure of the appeals statutes, i.e., conferring a broad general grant of appeal subject to enumerated limitations, further suggests that they are meant to represent the entire subject matter of the law of appeals. Id. Therefore, we overruled Cardinell and recognized that the State's right to appeal in criminal cases was based entirely on statute. Id. at 84, 785 A.2d at 1288.