Criminal Procedure - Admission of Out-of-Court Statements - Assault in the Second Degree
HB0477 expands Maryland’s existing hearsay exception for certain out-of-court statements when a defendant has wrongfully caused a witness or declarant to become unavailable. Under current law, that exception applies in criminal cases involving a felony. This bill adds criminal cases in which the defendant is charged with assault in the second degree, allowing otherwise excluded statements to be admitted if the court finds the defendant engaged in, directed, or conspired in wrongdoing intended to procure the declarant’s unavailability.
The bill preserves procedural safeguards before admission. The court must hold a hearing outside the jury’s presence, apply the Maryland Rules of Evidence strictly, and find by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant caused the unavailability. The statement must also meet one of several reliability-related conditions: it must have been given under oath, reduced to writing and signed, or recorded contemporaneously in substantially verbatim form. The proponent must also notify the opposing party promptly once unavailability is known.
HB0477 amends Section 10-901 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article to extend the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing hearsay rule to second-degree assault prosecutions, not just felony cases. This broadens the range of criminal cases in which prosecutors may introduce prior statements from unavailable declarants when the defendant is alleged to have caused that unavailability. The bill affects criminal defendants charged with second-degree assault, witnesses/declarants whose statements may be used, and trial courts responsible for conducting admissibility hearings. It takes effect October 1, 2026.
The available legislative history suggests generally favorable sentiment toward the bill. The House Judiciary Committee reported the bill favorably, and the House adopted it on second reading, indicating support for the policy change. No recorded votes or committee transcript objections are provided, so there is no evidence in the supplied materials of organized opposition or divided sentiment.
The main potential point of contention is the expansion of a hearsay exception in criminal trials, which can raise due process and confrontation concerns because it allows prior statements to be admitted when a witness is unavailable due to alleged wrongdoing by the defendant. Supporters are likely to view the bill as a tool to prevent defendants from benefiting from witness intimidation or witness tampering in second-degree assault cases. Opponents, if any, would likely focus on the risk of admitting testimony without live cross-examination and on whether extending the rule beyond felonies is too broad for misdemeanor-level assault prosecutions.