Kendall v. State, 56 A.3d 223

Angela Kendall was charged with four offenses in the District Court of Maryland, Talbot County, and elected a bench trial.
After the State rested, defense moved for judgment of acquittal on the charge of driving under the influence, while arguing improper service of process for all charges.
The court granted the judgment of acquittal on the DWI charge but denied it as to the other three charges on evidentiary grounds, then discussed service of process.
During proceedings the officer testified about service on Kendall’s mother, not Kendall, and no substantive discussion of guilt occurred for the three remaining charges.
The court then granted the motion as to the three charges and entered NG (not guilty) on the docket for each, recording a procedural basis unrelated to guilt.
The State appealed to the circuit court, contending the district court had dismissed the charges; Kendall argued the ruling was an acquittal barred by double jeopardy.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the District Court’s action triggered double jeopardy.	Kendall contends the NG entries were acquittals triggering double jeopardy.	State argues the action was a procedural dismissal for service, not an acquittal.	No double jeopardy; action was procedural, not an acquittal on the merits.
Whether labeling the disposition NG on the docket converts to an acquittal for double jeopardy purposes.	State asserts the NG labels reflect dismissal of charges for noncompliance with service.	Kendall maintains the labels show acquittals on merits.	Labeling does not control; substance showed a procedural dismissal, not an acquittal on elements.
Did the district court actually resolve some or all factual elements of the offenses when terminating the charges?	State argues there was a resolution of procedural grounds only.	Kendall argues the court effectively resolved factual elements by acquitting on the merits for one charge and applying a broader termination.	The termination was not a resolution of factual elements; no double jeopardy bar.
Is the State entitled to appeal a district court termination under MD law where double jeopardy may bar retrial?	State seeks to appeal the procedural dismissal of three charges.	Kendall asserts such an appeal violates double jeopardy.	State may pursue the appeal; double jeopardy not triggered by procedural dismissal.

United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co., 430 U.S. 564 (1977) (labels do not control double jeopardy; focus on substance of ruling)
United States v. Scott, 437 U.S. 82 (1978) (government may appeal if action is not an acquittal on merits)
State v. Taylor, 371 Md. 617 (2002) (dismissals based on sufficiency of evidence treated as acquittals for double jeopardy)
Daff v. State, 317 Md. 678 (1989) (jeopardy bars re-institution after failure of witnesses to appear; acquittal finality)
Brooks v. State, 299 Md. 146 (1984) (cannot relitigate after judge grants acquittal on merits)
Commonwealth v. Babb, 389 Mass. 275 (1983) (procedural dismissal not an acquittal when merits were not resolved)