|
terpretation of "type." It would open the
door to a great many things.
DELEGATE CASE: I do not think that
is true, because you have overlooked the
words "as limited by common law."
In other words, you have the overriding
restraint on the General Assembly — who
would be the only party that could define
it — that they would have to be of the type
known in common law. These were very
minor offenses. For example, here is what
I think you may be worried about: If the
General Assembly should say that larceny
would be a petty offense, this would un-
doubtedly be unconstitutional, because lar-
ceny, even petty larceny, was defined as
not being a petty offense under the present
Constitution. So the type or genre of these
cases is set now by the common law and by
the use of those words. It confines it to the
very remote, incidental, trifling little mat-
ters that either now exist or might some-
time in the future exist; but in no event
would the door be open to the thing that
I think is troubling you because of the use
of the words "common law."
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Vecera.
DELEGATE VECERA: I still think the
words "of the type" could be defined in a
number of various ways. I do not think he
has closed the door to any specific petty
offense as such, and has therefore left the
door quite wide open.
THE CHAIRMAN: I think we will make
better time if we stick to the rules of de-
bate.
The Chair has allowed considerable de-
parture.
Is there any delegate who desires to speak
in favor?
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in favor?
Delegate Carson.
DELEGATE CARSON: It was not the
intention of the movers of this amendment
to fog up the constitution. We were per-
fectly happy with the statement made by
the Chairman, but that statement, in turn,
was fogged up by others; and therefore
we had to re-introduce it. I am certainly
agreeable to allowing the Committee on
Style in any way to change the words that
we have used, as long as they do not change
the substance.
It is our intent — and I want to make
this clear — that this area shall include only
the area of petty offenses as defined in the
|
cases decided by the Maryland Court of
Appeals, and defined by the Supreme Court.
It is a most limited area. It is the area in
which the General Assembly may grant
the right of jury trial.
We are not taking away that right from
the General Assembly. It is only in the
minor situation that we say that the Court
may not have a jury trial. There were a
number of parking cases that arose in
Woodlawn. A number of protestants came
up to the United States District Court, and
they wanted, on minor petty parking cases,
jury trials, but fortunately they withdrew
it. Two weeks of the United States District
Court was involved in traffic cases, and it
all went to the Fourth District. It is a
very limited area. It is a very desirable
amendment, and I urge your support of it
for those reasons.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Macdonald.
DELEGATE MACDONALD: Mr. Chair-
man and fellow delegates, I do not practice
criminal law, and I do not pretend to be
an expert in this field.
I took the liberty of calling a practi-
tioner in Montgomery County who is one
of the leading practitioners in the field of
criminal law, if not the best practitioner in
this county. He has tried literally hundreds
of criminal cases, and I quoted this lan-
guage to him. He said all that it would do
would be to confuse the lawyers and the
judges.
In think we are making a mistake in
trying to write a provision for the con-
stitution on the floor. I think it should be
withdrawn, and if it is not withdrawn, then
I think it should be defeated.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any other dele-
gate desire to speak in favor?
Delegate Weidemeyer is recognized to
speak in opposition.
DELEGATE WEIDEMEYER: Mr.
President and members of the Committee, I
rise in opposition to this amendment be-
cause, as I have mentioned previously, if we
follow the Recommendation R&P-2 and we
also follow the recommendation of the Gen-
eral Provisions Committee, two Committees
which have recommended that Article 5 of
the present Declaration of Rights be incor-
porated somewhere in the constitution, we
do not put it in the Declaration of Rights.
Most of our Committee on Personal Rights
felt that it was very vital and probably
because it carried over transitory provi-
sions it should come under general provi-
|
