Types of Charging Documents

• Jurisdiction: Maryland

X. Types of charging documents

"Under Article 21 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights, a defendant in a criminal case is entitled to be informed in the charging document of the offenses that the defendant allegedly committed." Shannon v. State, 468 Md. 322, 325-27 (2020). Md. Code Ann., Crim. Proc. § 1-101(c)(1) and (2) , provides: "'Charging document' means a written accusation alleging that a defendant has committed a crime. 'Charging document' includes a written citation, an indictment, an information, a statement of charges, and a warrant." See Md. Rules 4-201, 4-211, and 11-407.

A crime may be tried only on a charging document. Md. Rule 4-201(a); Landaker v. State, 327 Md. 138 (1992). A charging document is a pleading that is a written accusation. Md. Code Ann., Crim. Proc. § 1-101(c)(1); Md. Rule 1-202(s). A court may seal a charging document until the defendant is arrested. Md. Rule 4-201(d). A defendant may not be charged with failure to appear if no charging document has been filed charging an offense.

A. Indictment

An indictment is a Circuit Court charging document that is issued by a grand jury. Md. Code Ann., Crim. Proc. § 1-101(c)(2); Md. Rule 4-102(d). An indictment must include the words "against the peace, government, and dignity of the State." Md. Const. art. IV, § 13; Md. Rule 4-202(c)(3).

The Fifth Amendment requires an indictment for federal felony charges, i.e., capital offenses and other infamous crimes, called a "true bill." Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(a) defines an infamous crime as one punishable by death or by more than one year imprisonment. In most states (including Maryland), there is no need to charge by indictment in state court.

Because a federal felony requires an indictment, an amendment to a federal indictment requires grand jury action. See Ex parte Bain, 121 U.S. 1, 12-13 (1886). That rule has been relaxed. See United States v. Miller, 471 U.S. 130, 143-44 (1985). In Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212, 215-16 (1960), the Supreme Court held that an indictment may be amended, but new facts may not constitute a different offense.

In Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 82 (1935), the Supreme Court held that it is not whether the proof has been varied, but whether the variance affected substantial rights of the defendant. Variance requires reversal if the defendant was deprived of the right to fair notice or was subjected to double jeopardy. See Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750 (1946).

B. Information

An information...