Legal Opinion

Hammond v. State

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided April 9, 1991No. 107, September Term, 1990PublishedCited by 21 opinions

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

  1. Booth v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
  2. Shell v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1986
  3. State v. JenkinsCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1986
  4. Booth v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1987
  5. Robinson v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1986

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. State v. OquendoSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1992
  2. Ford v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1993
  3. State v. HawkinsCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1992
  4. McMillian v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1992
  5. State v. StanleyCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1998

16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API