With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". required. If Art. 27, § 23, does include all Maryland public employees as I believe, and as the majority assumes, the informations are sufficient. The erroneous legal characterization of the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission as a “municipality or other political subdivision of the State” is an unnecessary averment and should be treated as surplusage. Where an indictment contains unnecessary language which does not mislead the accused, that language may be treated as surplusage. If, disregarding the surplusage, the indictment otherwise states sufficient facts so as to allege an offense and prevent a second prosecution for the same offense, the indictment will not be rendered defective by the inclusion of the surplusage. Archer v. State, 145 Md. 128, 144, 147-148, 125 A. 744 (1924) (<HOLDING>). See also Marks v. State, 230 Md. 108, 185 A.

A: holding that the recital of an erroneous legal characterization of facts did not render an indictment defective
B: holding that failure to allege facts tolling the statute of limitations did not make indictment fundamentally defective or deprive trial court of jurisdiction defendants failure to object to this defect before trial waived error on appeal
C: holding that an indictment gave sufficient notice when the indictment charged the elements of the offense
D: holding that a bill of particulars cannot cure a defective indictment
A.