HB1398, titled the “Victoria, Scottie, Ashleigh, and Yader’s Law,” creates a new criminal offense for distributing heroin, fentanyl, or a chemical analogue of either substance when that distribution results in another person’s death or serious bodily injury. The bill defines “distribute” to exclude non-remunerative sharing, and it applies even if the drug was mixed with other substances, altered after the distribution, or passed through multiple people before the harm occurred.
The bill makes a violation a felony punishable by up to 20 years’ imprisonment, in addition to any other penalty under existing controlled dangerous substance law. It also requires any sentence imposed under the new section to run consecutively to, rather than concurrently with, other sentences. The bill further provides immunity from prosecution under this section for a person who in good faith seeks, provides, or assists with medical help for someone experiencing a drug-related emergency, if the evidence for prosecution was obtained solely from that assistance. Venue is expanded so prosecution may occur either where the distribution happened or where the death or serious bodily injury occurred.
Impact
HB1398 would add a new section to the Criminal Law Article and a related venue provision to the Criminal Procedure Article, expanding Maryland’s drug-distribution liability framework for fatal or injurious heroin and fentanyl cases. It would give prosecutors a specific felony charge tied to overdose deaths or serious bodily injury, while preserving existing controlled dangerous substance offenses and adding a consecutive-sentencing requirement. The bill would also affect defendants, prosecutors, and courts by clarifying where cases may be filed and by creating a limited immunity provision intended to protect people who seek emergency medical aid.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes in the provided materials, the overall sentiment appears to be strongly punitive toward fentanyl and heroin trafficking while also including a public-health-oriented safeguard for people who call for help in an overdose emergency. The bill’s title and structure suggest a memorial and victim-centered purpose, indicating support for stronger accountability in overdose-related deaths. At the same time, the immunity language reflects an effort to avoid discouraging bystanders from seeking medical assistance.
Contention
The main points of contention likely concern whether the bill appropriately targets high-level distributors versus people lower in the chain of possession or delivery, since it can apply to anyone who distributed the drug before the injury or death and even when multiple transfers occurred. Another likely issue is the breadth of causation and venue provisions, which allow prosecution even when the substance was mixed with other compounds or altered after distribution and permit filing in either the distribution county or the county of harm. Supporters would likely emphasize accountability for fatal fentanyl distribution, while critics may worry about overbreadth, proof problems, and whether the law could sweep in marginal participants or complicate overdose-response efforts despite the good-faith medical-assistance immunity.