Criminal Procedure - Admission of Out-of-Court Statements - Assault in the Second Degree
Summary
SB465 expands Maryland’s hearsay exception for certain out-of-court statements when a defendant is charged with second-degree assault, not just a felony. Under the bill, a statement may be admitted if the court finds that the opposing party engaged in, directed, or conspired to commit wrongdoing intended to, and that did, make the declarant unavailable. The bill keeps the existing procedural safeguards, including a pretrial hearing outside the jury’s presence and a requirement that the statement meet specified reliability conditions.
The bill also preserves notice requirements: once the proponent learns the declarant will be unavailable, the adverse party must be notified as soon as practicable of the intent to use the statement, the statement’s details, and the witness through whom it will be introduced. The measure takes effect October 1, 2026, and amends Section 10-901 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article.
Impact
SB465 broadens the circumstances under which prior statements can be used in criminal trials by extending Maryland’s forfeiture-by-wrongdoing rule to second-degree assault cases. This affects the admissibility of evidence under the state’s hearsay rules and may make it easier for prosecutors to present statements from unavailable witnesses in certain assault prosecutions, while still requiring judicial findings and notice protections. The bill amends Maryland Code, Courts and Judicial Proceedings §10-901.
Sentiment
The available legislative history suggests generally favorable sentiment toward the bill. It received a favorable committee report in the Senate, was adopted on second reading, and then passed both chambers by wide margins on third reading, indicating broad bipartisan support. No committee transcript objections are provided in the record supplied.
Contention
The main policy issue is the balance between evidentiary fairness and prosecutorial flexibility. Supporters likely view the bill as a tool to prevent defendants from benefiting when wrongdoing causes a witness to become unavailable, especially in assault cases where witness intimidation or retaliation may be a concern. Potential critics would focus on the expanded use of hearsay in a non-felony context and the risk of admitting statements without live cross-examination, but the bill’s hearing, proof, and notice requirements are designed to limit that concern.