State v. Holton
24 A.3d 678
Md.2011Background
- Holton was charged by a four-count indictment with bribery, malfeasance, nonfeasance, and perjury in Baltimore City.
- The circuit court dismissed the indictment, invoking CJ § 5-501 legislative immunity.
- The Court of Special Appeals affirmed the dismissal, holding local legislators have immunity in criminal prosecutions under CJ § 5-501 and common law.
- The State sought certiorari; this Court granted review on two questions, including whether CJ § 5-501 provides immunity to local officials in state criminal prosecutions.
- The majority holds that CJ § 5-501 provides immunity in criminal prosecutions and the indictment was properly dismissed.
- The concurrence/dissent argues dismissal was improper and suppression of tainted evidence should have been the remedy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does CJ § 5-501 provide legislative immunity for local officials in state criminal prosecutions? | State contends immunity applies to local legislators in criminal cases. | Holton argues immunity should not bar criminal prosecutions, or that the matter should be treated differently than civil actions. | Yes; CJ § 5-501 applies to criminal prosecutions of local officials. |
| Is dismissal of the indictment proper where privileged legislative evidence permeates the charges? | State urges dismissal as appropriate remedy for CJ § 5-501 violation. | Holton contends dismissal is inappropriate; suppression should suffice and indictment should not be dismissed. | Dismissal is the proper remedy in this case. |
Key Cases Cited
- Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359 (1956) (indictment validity on its face; grand jury considerations)
- Gelbard v. United States, 408 U.S. 41 (1972) (tainted evidence admissibility; indictment dismissal generally not required)
- Blue v. United States, 384 U.S. 251 (1966) (evidence obtained illegally may be excluded; not grounds to dismiss indictment)
- Lawn v. United States, 355 U.S. 339 (1958) (grand jury evidence; limits on inquiry into legality of grand jury evidence)
- Bailey v. State, 289 Md. 143 (1980) (pretrial dismissal of indictment; proper when statutory requirements not followed)
- Everhart v. State, 274 Md. 459 (1975) (tainted evidence before grand jury; dismissal not favored remedy)
- Pick v. State, 143 Md. 192 (1923) (competence of grand jury testimony; dismissal not automatic when tainted)
- State v. Taylor, 371 Md. 617 (2002) (indictment sufficiency vs evidentiary adequacy)
- Deville v. State, 383 Md. 217 (2004) (statutory interpretation principles for Maryland statutes)
- Gillespie v. State, 370 Md. 219 (2002) (statutory interpretation; give every word effect)