Ref & Annos
West's Annotated Code of MarylandCriminal Procedure
MD Code, Criminal Procedure, Ref & Annos
Revisor's Note (Acts 2001, c. 10):
REVISOR'S NOTE TO ARTICLE:
The Department of Legislative Services is charged with revising the law in a clear, concise, and organized manner, without changing the effect of the law. One precept of revision has been that, once something is said, it should be said in the same way every time. To that end, the Criminal Procedure Article Review Committee conformed the language and organization of this article to that of previously enacted revised articles to the extent possible.
Noted below are conventions frequently observed for material revised in this article. To avoid confusion, however, these conventions are not always observed for material that formerly appeared in other revised articles in the Maryland Code or that are part of a national uniform law.
--The word “regulations” is substituted for former references to “rules and regulations” to distinguish, to the extent possible, between regulations of executive units and rules of judicial or legislative units and to establish consistency in the use of the words. This substitution conforms to the practice of the Division of State Documents. The word “rules” is used only in connection with some entity that has the authority to pass rules, for example, the Maryland Court of Appeals.
--For consistency and to avoid unnecessary confusion, the singular verb “adopt” is used in relation to rules or regulations, and verbs such as “prescribe” and “promulgate” are deleted. The procedures to be followed in adopting regulations are set forth in Title 10, subtitle 1 of the State Government Article.
--Also, for consistency, references to adopting regulations or rules to “carry out” particular provisions of this article are substituted for former references to adopting regulations for “the implementation of” or to “administer”, “implement”, “accomplish the purpose of”, or “accomplish the objectives of” the relevant provisions.
--The word “law” is substituted for former phrases such as “law or regulation” because the broad reference to a “law” includes a “regulation” adopted under the authority of a law. See, e.g., Maryland Port Administration V. Brawner Contracting Co., 303 Md. 44, 60 (1985).
--The term “unit” is substituted for former references such as “agency”, “department”, “administration”, “commission”, and “office”, except when a former reference indicated a specific entity or was included as part of a defined term. The term “unit” is used as the general term for an organization in the State government because it is broad enough to include all such entities.
--The term “correctional facility” is defined broadly in Title 1 of this article and, for consistency, is used throughout the article as a substitute for former references such as “reformatory”, “jail”, “prison”, “penal institution”, “institution”, “lock-up”, and “detention center”. The term “correctional facility” includes former references to more specific terms such as “community correctional facility”, “work-release facility”, and “prerelease facility”. The terms “State correctional facility” and “local correctional facility” are also defined in Title 1 of this article.
--For consistency, the terms “confined” and “confinement” are substituted for former references such as “incarcerated”, “incarceration”, “detained”, “detention”, “imprisoned”, and “imprisonment” when referring to an inmate who is being held in a correctional facility.
--For accuracy and consistency, the term “crime” is substituted for former references to an “offense” when referring to a misdemeanor or felony under State or federal law, unless it: (1) is not punishable by imprisonment; or (2) is widely known or categorized under law as an “offense”. Thus, for example, references to any of the group of criminal acts categorized under Article 27 of the Code as “sexual offenses” remain unchanged.
References to current units and positions are substituted for obsolete references to entities and positions that have been abolished or have otherwise ceased to exist.
A reference to a person found guilty of a misdemeanor being “subject to § 5-106(b) of the Courts Article” is substituted for the former reference to a person “subject to imprisonment in the penitentiary”. Besides not conforming to the term “correctional facility” that is used throughout this article, provisions that make persons who are convicted of certain crimes liable for imprisonment “in the penitentiary” are obsolete in light of the superseding law that commits all persons convicted of crimes to “the jurisdiction of the Division of Correction”, notwithstanding any law requiring the imprisonment to be served at a specific State correctional facility. See CS § 9-103(a). Two elements of penitentiary misdemeanors should be noted: (1) although most misdemeanors are subject to a 1-year limitation period, prosecution of those which specify a punishment of imprisonment in the penitentiary is not limited; and (2) penitentiary misdemeanors are subject to the right of in banc review under Md. Constitution, Art. IV, § 22. These two elements are retained by the revision of § 5-106(b) of the Courts Article that is included in this Act.
Former Art. 27, § 618 is deleted. The former statute, with certain exceptions, barred a citizen of the State committed to the custody of an “officer” for a criminal matter from being transferred into the custody of another officer. Exceptions to this rule included the delivery of a prisoner “to a constable or other inferior officer ... or from one place to another within the said county or an adjoining county, in order to his discharge or trial in due course of law, or in case of sudden fire or infection, or other necessity”. Finally, a prisoner could be removed if the prisoner was charged “with treason, felony, or other crime alleged to be done” in another state.
The statute, which was first enacted in 1809, is obsolete. If read literally, the statute would have barred, for example, a transfer of a prisoner from Baltimore County to Frederick County, because the two counties are not adjoining and therefore would not fall under an exception to the no-transfer rule. In addition, in its use of the word “officer”, the statute apparently contemplated a sheriff, who has statutory authority to receive individuals and place them under custody until they are discharged by law. However, current law authorizes others to have custody over prisoners. See, e.g., CS § 5-201 (giving the Division of Pretrial Detention and Services of the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services the same custodial authority as sheriffs), and Art. 87, § 48 (Anne Arundel County Council may provide for the transportation of prisoners by certified law enforcement officers other than the Sheriff). Finally, the removal of prisoners to other states is governed by the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act. See Title 9 of this article.
Title 12 of this article concerns forfeiture of property involved with controlled dangerous substance violations, and Title 13 of this article concerns forfeiture of property involved in gambling and gun law violations. In Maryland, forfeiture laws generally are civil in rem actions. See Baltimore V. 1995 Corvette, 119 Md. App. 691 (1998), Director of Finance of Prince George's County V. Cole, 296 Md. 607 (1983) and Gatewood V. State, 264 Md. 301 (1972). The placement of these titles in this article is for convenience only and is not intended to change the civil nature of these forfeiture laws.
In some instances, the staff of the Department of Legislative Services may create “Special Revisor's Notes” to reflect the substantive effect of legislation enacted during the 2001 Session on some provisions of this article.
HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY NOTES
Acts 2001, c. 10, § 2, added the Criminal Procedure Article.
MD Code, Criminal Procedure, Ref & Annos, MD CRIM PROC Ref & Annos
Current through all legislation from the 2019 Regular Session of the General Assembly.
|End of Document||© 2019 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.|