Preview:

REPORTED

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND

No. 2096 September Term, 2005

In re AREAL B.

Kraus er, C.J., Hollander, Barbera, JJ.

Opinion by Barbera, J.

Filed: December 27, 2007

Areal B. was charged b y juvenile delinq uency petition w ith the act of e ngaging in prostitution. The State's proof, however, established that Areal committed not prostitution, but solicitation for prostitution. After the State rested, the defense moved to dismiss the petition based on insufficiency of the evidence, and the juvenile master, at the State's request and over defense objection, amended the petition to add a second count charging solicitation. The master denied Areal a continuance, reasoning that the defense was on notice that solicitation "m ay very well have been charged," and "the facts are the facts." The defense rested w ithout p utting o n any evi dence . The juvenile master granted the defense motion to dismiss the charge of prostitution and found Areal involved in the act of solicitation for prostitution. The master recommended to the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, sitting as the juvenile court, that the State's request to amend the petition be granted. The master further recommended that Areal be found delinquent and placed on probation under the supervision of the Department of Juvenile Services for an indefinite period of time. Areal filed an exception in the circuit court to the master's recommendations. She challenged the recommen ded amendm ent, the denial of her request fo r a continuance, and the recommendation that she be found involved in the act of solicitation for prostitution. The juvenile court denied the exce ption and approve d the master's recomm endations. The cou rt adjudicated Areal delinquent and placed her on indefinite probation. Areal raises a single complain t on appea l: "Did the juvenile cou rt err by adding a new count charging a different offense at the adjudicatory hearing after the State rested its case

and conceded that the evidence was insufficient to prove the offense originally charged?" We agre e with A real that the juv enile court er red and rev erse the judg ment. BACKGROUND The State alleged in the origina l juvenile petitio n that Area l was eng aged in prostitution, which is conduct that if committed by an adult would constitute a violation of Maryland Code (2002 ),

Download In Re: Areal B..pdf

Maryland Law