Sullivan v. State

THE SECOND OFFENDER

Prior to 1 January 1962 the procedures to be followed with respect to the subsequent offense aspect of a criminal charge as the basis for increased punishment were In a snarl. This was made manifest in Beard v. State, 216 Md. 302 (1958), in which a divided Court attempted to deal with the problem. The majority opinion held, in essence, that a form of indictment charging the current offense and alleging the historical fact or facts of one or more prior offenses was valid. In other words, an indictment for a subsequent offense must contain an averment as to a prior offense,…