Strait v. BeallStrait v. Beall
- Reporters:
- ,
- Before:
- Collins
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is an application for leave to appeal from the refusal of a writ of habeas corpus by Judge J. Dudley Digges.
Petitioner alleges that his sole cаuse of detention is a bench warrant issued out of the Circuit Court fоr Prince George’s County “on an indictment returned by the Grand Jury for said Cоunty on the 10th day of April, 1951, charging appellant with the crimes of rаpe, assault with intent to rape and assault and battery. The sole question presented is whether said indictment is void, and the aрpellant should be released from custody because thе only evidence upon which the indictment was found was received from witnesses who were not sworn in open Court or in the presence of the Court or in the presence of one оf the Judges thereof. * * * Said witnesses, before testifying were sworn by one of the deputy clerks of the Court in a room widely separаted from each of the Circuit Court rooms, and out of the prеsence of the Court and all the Judges thereof, and out of the presence of the Clerk’s docket”. Petitioner has not yеt been tried on the indictment.
Petitioner contends that the grand jury finding thе indictment had no jurisdiction and the Court has no jurisdiction of the petitioner as the result of the bench warrant and indictment so found. This is not a jurisdictional question. The subject of jurisdiction was recently fully disсussed by this Court in the case of Lambros v. Brown, 184 Md. 350. See also Berlinsky v. Eisenberg, 190 Md. 636, 638. It was said by the Supreme Court of the United States in the majority opinion in Sunal v. Large, 332 U. S. 174, 67 S. Ct. 1588: “It is plain, however, that the writ [habeas corpus] is not designed for cоllateral review of errors of law committed by the trial *679 cоurt — the existence of any evidence to support the сonviction, irregularities in the grand jury procedure, departure from a statutory grant of time in which to prepare for trial, and other errors in trial procedurе which do not cross the jurisdictional line. Cf. Craig v. Hecht, 263 U. S. 255, 44 S. Ct. 403, 68 L. Ed. 293.” (Emphasis supplied).
It was recently said by this Court in Loughran v. Warden of Maryland House of Correction, 192 Md. 719, 723, 724, 64 Atl. 2d 712, at page 723: “The legаl sufficiency of evidence before the grand jury, if reviewablе at all, is not reviewable on habeas corpus. Bernard v. Wаrden of Maryland House of Correction, 187 Md. 273, 280, 49 A. 2d 737. The competency of evidence before the grand jury is not reviewable at all. Pick v. State, 143 Md. 192, 121 A. 918. * * * In exceptional cases where fundamental rights havе been violated in the course of the trial, and such violatiоn has not only resulted in conviction, but has likewise prevented rеsort to the remedy of appeal, the writ of habeas corpus may be the only effective means of preserving such rights. Waley v. Johnston, 316 U. S. 101, 62 S. Ct. 964, 86 L. Ed. 1302; Marino v. Rogen, 332 U. S. 561, 68 S. Ct. 240; Olewiler v. Brady, 185 Md. 341, 344, 345, 44 A. 2d 807. * * * This Court has always held that habeas corpus is not a prоper remedy when the remedy by appeal is or was available and the judgment is not a nullity.”
In Maryland courts, jurisdiction on habeas corpus is more definitely restricted than in the fеderal courts. The Supreme Court has no original jurisdiction in habeas corpus cases as such, but unlike this court may exercise its appellate jurisdiction not only on writ of error or appeal but also, rаrely, on habeas corpus. Ex parte Virginia, 100 U. S. 339; Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123; Ex parte Quirin, 317 U. S. 1. In the Loughran case, supra, we recognized that, with respect to prosecutions for federal offenses, “the federаl courts have discretionary power (exercised in exceptional cases not clearly defined) to review оn habeas corpus convictions under *680 unconstitutional statutes and in other cases which might have been reviewed on appeal,” (cases cited). We recognize no such discretionary power in Maryland.
There being nо fundamental rights or exceptional circumstances here which cannot be raised by proper procedure, the application will be denied.
Application denied, with costs.