Court Opinion

ID: 9712596
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:56:55.622261+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:13.178991
License: Public Domain

Eldridge, J.,

dissenting:

In my view, the case should be remanded to the Court of Special Appeals with directions to dismiss the State’s appeal. For the reasons set forth in the dissenting opinion in Williams and Fulwood v. Director, 276 Md. 272, 315-321, 347 A. 2d 179 (1975), I believe that, regardless of the label attached by state law, a defective delinquency proceeding under Maryland Code (1957), Art. 31B, is a criminal proceeding for purposes of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. And it is well settled that the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment, applicable to state proceedings by the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits the prosecution from seeking appellate review of a verdict in a criminal proceeding, United States v. Sisson, 399 U. S. 267, 289-290, 90 S. Ct. 2117, 2129-2130, 26 L.Ed.2d 608 (1970); Fong Foo v. United States, 369 U. S. 141, 143, 82 S. Ct. 671, 672, 7 L.Ed.2d 629 (1962); Kepner v. United States, *196195 U. S. 100, 24 S. Ct. 797, 49 L. Ed. 114 (1904); Ball v. United States, 163 U. S. 662, 671, 16 S. Ct. 1192, 1195, 41 L. Ed. 300 (1896). Consequently, the jury’s verdict that the appellee was no longer a defective delinquent should have finally terminated the defective delinquency proceedings, and an appellate court días no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal by the State from that verdict.