Legal Opinion

In re Appeal No. 180

Court of Appeals of Maryland

Decided November 4, 1976No. 51PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.

We shall here hold that the word “solicit” as used in Maryland Code (1957) Art. 27, § 15 (e) making it unlawful “to solicit... for the purpose of prostitution” is to be read *444in the terms of its ordinary meaning and not with reference to the common law offense of solicitation.

The facts are not in dispute. Appellant (the juvenile), then 15 years of age, approached the private car of a Baltimore City police officer, then on duty in plain clothes, and offered to perform normal sexual intercourse for $25.00. Following their conversation, they drove to a nearby motel. As they approached the lobby…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. State v. AverySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1828
  2. Howell v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1976
  3. Commonwealth v. FlaggMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1883
  4. Morgan v. City of DetroitDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 1975
  5. Cherry v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1973

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. WilsonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1982
  2. Meyer v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1981
  3. Schackow v. Medical-Legal Consulting Service, Inc.Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1980
  4. McNeil v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1999
  5. Frye v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1985

6 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