Manslaughter by Vehicle or Vessel - Increased Penalties (Jamari's Law)
HB0873 would expand the Maryland juvenile court’s exclusive original jurisdiction over certain children alleged to have committed theft of a motor vehicle. Under current law, the juvenile court already has jurisdiction over children age 10 and older alleged to have committed specified serious offenses, including crimes of violence, handgun and firearm offenses, aggravated cruelty to animals, and third-degree sexual offense. This bill adds motor vehicle theft to that list, but only when the child has previously been referred to an at-risk youth prevention and diversion program for one of several listed weapons- or vehicle-related offenses.
The practical effect is to bring a narrower set of repeat youth motor-vehicle theft cases into juvenile court rather than adult criminal court, while preserving the existing age threshold and the bill’s focus on children with prior diversion involvement. The bill amends Section 3-8A-03(a) of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article and would take effect October 1, 2025. It does not create a new offense or change the underlying theft statute; it changes which court has jurisdiction over certain juvenile cases.
HB0873 would modify Maryland’s juvenile jurisdiction statute by adding theft of a motor vehicle under Criminal Law Article § 7-105 to the list of offenses that can place a child age 10 or older under juvenile court jurisdiction, but only if the child previously received an at-risk youth prevention and diversion referral for certain related offenses. This affects the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article and may influence how repeat juvenile auto-theft cases are handled procedurally, shifting them into juvenile court rather than leaving them to other charging or transfer pathways.
Based on the bill text and available context, the measure appears to be framed as a targeted juvenile-justice response to repeat motor-vehicle theft behavior rather than a broad punitive change. No committee transcript or vote record is provided, so there is no direct evidence of formal support or opposition in the materials. The limited context suggests a policy approach focused on intervention after prior diversion efforts have already been used.
The main point of contention is likely the bill’s narrow trigger: it applies only when a child has already been referred to an at-risk youth prevention and diversion program for specified prior offenses. Supporters may view this as a measured way to address repeat offending while keeping cases in juvenile court, while critics could argue it either goes too far by expanding juvenile jurisdiction for auto theft or does too little because it applies only after prior diversion referrals. Another possible issue is whether the bill’s focus on motor vehicle theft and prior weapons-related conduct appropriately balances rehabilitation and accountability.