State v. James, 203 Md. 113

Summary

The Maryland Court of Appeals held that Maryland could criminally prosecute a father residing in Maryland for wilfully failing to support children residing in Delaware. The court concluded that Maryland's non-support statute applied extraterritorially to the father's continuing obligation and that a prior Delaware support order did not bar prosecution for subsequent non-support or create double jeopardy. The court reversed the dismissal of the indictment and remanded the case for trial.

Holdings

1. The State had the right to appeal the order granting the motion to dismiss the indictment because the order was a final termination of the prosecution on that indictment.
2. The prior Delaware proceeding did not bar prosecution for the later period of nonsupport charged in Maryland.
3. Maryland could prosecute James under Article 27, § 96(b), for wilfully failing to support his children even though the children resided outside Maryland.
4. The Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act provided an additional remedy and did not displace or preclude the criminal prosecution under Article 27, § 96(b).

Questions Presented

1. Whether the State could appeal an order granting a motion to dismiss a criminal indictment.
2. Whether a prior Delaware nonsupport conviction and support order barred the Maryland prosecution on double-jeopardy grounds.
3. Whether Maryland could prosecute a Maryland resident for wilful failure to support children residing in another state.
4. Whether Maryland's Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act provided the exclusive remedy and precluded the criminal prosecution.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded