Criminal Procedure - Sentencing - Domestic Violence as a Mitigating Factor (Providing Alternatives Through Healing for Justice-Involved Individuals (PATH) Act)
HB0084, the PATH Act, would allow a criminal defendant to present evidence at sentencing, or at a later sentence-modification hearing filed within five years, that the defendant was a victim of domestic violence and that the abuse was a significant contributing factor in the offense. The bill defines domestic violence broadly and limits the types of offenses covered, focusing on crimes of violence and certain property, drug, prostitution, human trafficking, extortion, burglary, trespass, theft, fraud, and related attempt/conspiracy offenses when tied to coercion, control, economic abuse, or compulsion arising from abuse.
If the court finds the defendant has proven the abuse by a preponderance of the evidence, the court must treat domestic violence as a mitigating factor and may depart from mandatory minimums or sentencing guidelines, so long as the sentence remains within the lawful maximum. The court must state its reasons on the record, and the State may rebut the defendant’s evidence. The bill also makes clear that it does not create a new crime, a defense to prosecution, or limit victims’ rights, and it preserves the court’s ability to consider domestic violence under other laws.
The bill would add a new section to the Criminal Procedure Article, creating a statutory sentencing mitigation framework for defendants who were victims of domestic violence. It would affect sentencing practice in Maryland courts by authorizing downward departures from mandatory minimum sentences and sentencing guidelines in qualifying cases, and by allowing consideration of domestic violence evidence at certain sentence-modification or reduction hearings. It would also require courts to make findings on the record and would place the burden of proof on the defendant.
The available record shows the bill was introduced and assigned to the Judiciary Committee, with a House hearing scheduled, but no committee transcript or vote data is provided. Based on the bill text, the measure is framed as a reform-oriented, trauma-informed sentencing policy intended to recognize the role of abuse in criminal conduct. There is no recorded opposition or support in the supplied materials, so the overall sentiment cannot be measured from votes or testimony; however, the bill’s structure suggests an effort to balance mitigation for survivors with preservation of prosecutorial rebuttal rights and victims’ rights.
The main points of potential contention are the breadth of offenses covered, the scope of what counts as domestic violence, and whether the bill should permit departures from mandatory minimum sentences. Critics could question whether the mitigation standard is too expansive or could be misused, while supporters are likely to emphasize that the defendant must prove the abuse by a preponderance of the evidence and that the State may rebut it. Another likely issue is the bill’s application to drug, theft, fraud, prostitution, and human trafficking offenses when those crimes were allegedly compelled by an abuser, which may raise concerns about evidentiary complexity and sentencing consistency.