Opinion
[No. 116, September Term, 1982.]
Decided March 28, 1983.
CRIMINAL LAW — GRAND JURIES — APPEAL. In an appeal to consider whether the trial court properly quashed a subpoena issued by the grand jury on grounds of accountant-client privilege, the Court held the appeal must be dismissed because the term of the grand jury had expired and there was no one to whom the subpoena would be returnable.
A.L.C.
Appeal from the Criminal Court of Baltimore (ALLEN, J.), pursuant to certiorari to the Court of Special Appeals.
The Attorney General of Maryland appealed the order of the Criminal Court of Baltimore quashing a grand jury subpoena on grounds of accountant-client privilege. The Court granted certiorari prior to a decision by the Court of Special Appeals.
Appeal dismissed. Appellant to pay the costs.
The cause was argued before SMITH, ELDRIDGE, COLE, DAVIDSON, RODOWSKY and COUCH, JJ., and W. ALBERT MENCHINE, Associate Judge of the Court of Special Appeals (retired), specially assigned.
Stefan D. Cassella, Assistant Attorney General, with whom were Stephen H. Sachs, Attorney General, and John-Claude Charbonneau, Assistant Attorney General, on the brief, for appellant.
David R. Addis, with whom were Dickstein, Shapiro Morin on the brief, for appellee.
This is yet another case involving the accountant-client privilege. See In Re Special Investigation No. 236, 295 Md. 573, 458 A.2d 75 (1983), for a case argued the same day. This proceeding also involves the investigation by the Attorney General into Medicaid fraud. A subpoena was laid in the hands of an accountant. Those whose papers were affected sought and obtained an order of the Criminal Court of Baltimore quashing the subpoena on the grounds of the accountant-client privilege. The Attorney General appealed to the Court of Special Appeals. On our own motion we issued a writ of certiorari prior to hearing in the latter court.
This appeal must be dismissed. The term of the grand jury in question has expired. No effort was made to have the grand jury continued beyond its term. Thus, if we were to reverse in this proceeding there would be no one to whom the subpoena would be returnable. See In Re Special Investigation No. 195, 295 Md. 276, 454 A.2d 843 (1983).
Appeal dismissed; appellant to pay the costs.