Hammond v. State
Court of Appeals of Maryland
1Opinion of the Court
CHARLES E. ORTH, Jr., Judge,
Specially Assigned.
I
One hundred and thirty-eight years ago the Maryland Legislature declared that it was a crime
[i]f any person ... shall assault and beat any person, with intent to maim, disfigure or disable such person____
Acts 1853, ch. 99, § 1, now codified as § 386, Article 27 of the Maryland Code (1957, 1987 Repl.Vol.). During all those years, the Legislature has never explicitly stated whether the specific intents required 1 must be to maim, disfigure, or disable permanently. In fact, the Legislature has addressed the statute only once during that period. As…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Booth v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Shell v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1986
- State v. JenkinsCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1986
- Booth v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1987
- Robinson v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1986
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- State v. OquendoSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1992
- Ford v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1993
- State v. HawkinsCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1992
- McMillian v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1992
- State v. StanleyCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1998
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.