Criminal Procedure - Theft - Notification of Victims and Victims' Representatives
HB 793 expands victim-notification requirements in theft cases. The bill amends Maryland criminal procedure law to require a prosecuting attorney to give victims, or their representatives, notice of all court proceedings related to theft offenses covered by Criminal Law § 7-104(g)(2) and (3), which are thefts involving property or services valued at less than $1,500. The required notice includes each court proceeding, the victim’s right to submit a victim impact statement, any posttrial proceedings, any appeal, and any sentence review related to the case.
The bill also makes related changes to the existing victim-notification framework. It preserves and updates procedures for filing notification request forms, using the MDEC electronic filing/protocol system, maintaining confidentiality of contact information, and discontinuing notice. It continues to require prosecutors to send victims the standard pamphlet and notification request form after indictment or juvenile filing, and it clarifies how notice is handled in jurisdictions using automated or electronic court systems. The bill takes effect October 1, 2026.
HB 793 would amend Criminal Procedure § 11-104 to create a special, mandatory notice rule for victims of lower-level theft offenses under Criminal Law § 7-104(g)(2) and (3). For those cases, prosecutors must provide notice of proceedings and related rights even if the victim has not filed a notification request form or used the MDEC protocol. The bill therefore broadens the duties of prosecuting attorneys and increases the procedural rights of theft victims and their representatives, while leaving the underlying theft penalties in Criminal Law § 7-104 unchanged.
The available record shows no recorded votes or committee testimony, so there is no direct evidence of support or opposition from the hearing process. Based on the bill text, the measure appears to be framed as a victim-services and notice enhancement rather than a punitive criminal-law change, which suggests a generally protective and administrative purpose. The absence of amendments, votes, or transcript debate limits any stronger conclusion about legislative sentiment.
The main potential point of contention is the expanded prosecutorial burden: the bill requires automatic notice in covered theft cases regardless of whether the victim affirmatively requests it, which could raise administrative and implementation concerns for prosecutors and court staff. Another possible issue is the interaction with existing notice-request procedures and the MDEC system, since the bill creates a special rule that overrides the usual request-based framework for certain theft victims. No specific objections or supporters are documented in the provided materials.