38 CONSTITUTION OF MARYLAND [Arts. 21-22]

persons convicted a second time of the violation of the liquor laws of Baltimore county
should pay a heavier fine than for a first offense and that the court may determine
the fact as to the prior conviction by consulting the court docket, is unconstitutional.
The information guaranteed by this article need not be conveyed by word of mouth
nor by any other means than a copy of the indictment or charge, and the traverser must
be informed of the whole charge. Goeller v. State, 119 Md. 63.

Both the Constitution of the United States and of Maryland (as shown by the fifth
amendment of the former and by this article) use the terms "indictment, presentment
and charge" interchangeably. The presentment or charge should be full and definite;
indictment held invalid because too vague. State v. Keifer, 90 Md. 173.

Generally.

A trial should not be so conducted as to have the appearance of a star chamber pro-
ceeding; limitations on this rule. Testimony should be taken in the presence of the
accused; counsel cannot waive this right. Button v. State, 123 Md. 386.

When a traverser is indicted for murder in the technical language of the common law,
he is charged with a crime which includes all circumstances of aggravation, and as all
minor degrees are included in the major, he may be convicted of the inferior as well as
of the higher grades of murder. The act of 1809, ch. 138—see art. 27, sec. 475, et seq.,
of the An. Code—which divided the crime murder into degrees, held not to violate this
article, although it permitted a conviction of murder in the first degree on an indictment
which did not aver a willful, deliberate and premeditated killing. Davis v. State,

39 Md. 384.

This article referred to in deciding that where the docket shows that the verdict
was regularly found "guilty of murder in the first degree, " but it is proven as a matter
of fact that the verdict was merely "guilty, " without finding the degree, a new trial must
be had. Ford v. State, 12 Md. 549.

The portion of this article providing that the accused shall have the right to be con-
fronted with the witnesses against him does not exempt all evidence except oral evi-
dence of witnesses produced in court. Documentary evidence, held proper. Johns v.
State. 55 Md. 359.

This article referred to in discussing whether a witness who was a member of the club
under indictment for a violation of a local option law, should have been excused from
testifying. Chesapeake Club v. State, 63 Md. 461 (dissenting opinion).

When a person accused of crime by a sufficient indictment is subjected, like all other
persons, to the law in its regular course, this article is not violated. Object of this
article. Lanasa v. State, 109 Md. 610.

This article referred to in passing upon the functions of grand jury; criticism of
public officials; power exceeded. In re Report of Grand Jury, 152 Md. 623.

Sec. 665 of art. 27, providing that it is not necessary to set forth manner or means
of death in indictment for murder or manslaughter, not in violation of this article.
Neusbaum v. State, 156 Md. 149.

See art. 15, sec. 5 of the Md. Constitution.

Cited in Smith v. State, 169 Md. 476.

Art. 22. That no man ought to be compelled to give evidence against
himself in a criminal case.

This Article referred to in holding conversations heard over the telephone in reference
to bets on races, were inadmissible under the facts disclosed by the record. Rowan v.
State, 175 Md. 559.

An indictment will not be quashed because it was found upon testimony given by
the traverser before the grand jury. Grove v. Taylor, 143 Md. 193.

This article is waived if the traverser becomes a witness in his own behalf. Guy v.
State, 90 Md. 33.

When a law provides that in case of its violation by any corporation, association, etc.,
each of its members "shall be liable and shall suffer imprisonment, " etc., upon the
indictment of a club for the violation of the liquor laws, a member may not be com-
pelled to give testimony which might incriminate him; the privilege is a personal one and
must be claimed by the witness upon oath. It is for the court to decide whether the
privilege is well claimed or not; hence it must appear from the surrounding circumstances
and the nature of the evidence sought to be elicited whether reasonable grounds exist
for apprehending that the witness will incriminate himself. The privilege may be claimed
after a witness has testified to other matters without objection. Chesapeake v. State,
63 Md. 456.

The state may not compel a traverser to produce in evidence against himself his private
books and papers; this is true although such books and papers have, prior to the
traverser's indictment, been turned over under an order of court to receivers. The fourth
and fifth amendments to the Constitution of the United States are in pan materia with
this article and art. 26. Cases reviewed. History of this article. Blum v. State, 94 Md. 380.
Cf. Lawrence v. State, 103 Md. 35; Archer v. State, 145 Md. 142; Meisinger v. State, 155
Md. 202 (dissenting opinion).

The fact that certain bonds and certificates of stock were illegally taken from the
traverser, does not render them inadmissible in evidence against him. Lawrence v. State,
103 Md. 33.