Criminal Procedure - Theft - Notification of Victims and Victims' Representatives
HB 749 expands victim-notification requirements in theft cases. The bill amends Maryland criminal procedure law to require a prosecuting attorney, in cases involving theft under Criminal Law § 7-104(g)(2) or (3) — theft of property or services valued at less than $1,500 — to notify the victim or the victim’s representative about each court proceeding related to the case, the right to submit a victim impact statement, any posttrial proceedings, any appeal, and any sentence review. These notice obligations apply regardless of whether the victim has filed a notification request form or used the MDEC electronic protocol.
The bill also makes related changes to the general victim-notification framework in Criminal Procedure § 11-104. It preserves existing notice procedures for victims who request notice, clarifies how notification forms are handled in jurisdictions with and without MDEC, and allows victims to keep contact information confidential through designated recipients or electronic protocol options. It also continues requirements for prosecutors and clerks to transmit notification forms in circuit and juvenile court cases, and it maintains the ability of victims to stop future notices.
In practical terms, the bill would increase the duties of prosecutors in lower-level theft cases and ensure that victims of those offenses receive automatic notice of key court events. It would affect prosecuting attorneys, court clerks, victims, and victims’ representatives, while leaving the underlying theft penalties and restitution provisions unchanged. The bill takes effect October 1, 2026.
The overall sentiment reflected by the bill text is supportive of stronger victim rights and more consistent communication in theft prosecutions. Because there were no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no documented opposition or support to measure beyond the bill’s stated purpose. The measure appears framed as an administrative and victim-services enhancement rather than a substantive change to theft sentencing or liability.
The main point of contention likely would be the added administrative burden on prosecutors and courts, especially the requirement to provide notice even without a victim request in specified theft cases. Another possible issue is the expansion of mandatory notice obligations into cases that are often handled as lower-level misdemeanors, which may raise questions about workload, implementation, and whether the automatic-notice rule should apply only to certain offenses.
HB 749 amends Criminal Procedure § 11-104 to create a special victim-notification rule for theft cases under Criminal Law § 7-104(g)(2) and (3), requiring prosecutors to provide notice of proceedings, plea terms, posttrial events, appeals, sentence review, and victim-impact rights even without a request form. It also reinforces existing notification procedures, MDEC electronic notice options, confidentiality protections, and form transmission requirements for courts and prosecutors. The bill does not change theft penalties or restitution provisions in Criminal Law § 7-104.
The bill’s apparent policy direction is pro-victim and pro-notice, with the goal of ensuring that victims of theft offenses are kept informed about the progress and outcome of their cases. No votes or committee testimony were provided, so there is no recorded legislative debate to indicate formal support or opposition. Based on the text alone, the measure appears noncontroversial in purpose but operationally more demanding for prosecutors and court staff.
The likely area of contention is the expanded administrative obligation placed on prosecuting attorneys to provide automatic notice in theft cases, even when the victim has not affirmatively requested it. Critics might question whether the added notice requirements are necessary for lower-value theft offenses or whether they will create extra workload and compliance challenges, particularly in jurisdictions without fully implemented MDEC systems. Supporters would likely emphasize victim access, transparency, and consistent notice regardless of case value.