# STANDING COMMITTEE ON RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/court_rules%3Amd%3A675d7e68d0947d6b

## Record

- **Collection:** Court rules
- **Document type:** Court rule

## Text

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULES CHANGES

The Rules Committee has submitted its Two Hundred and TwentyFourth Report to the Supreme Court of Maryland, transmitting thereby a
proposed new Preamble to the Maryland Rules; proposed new Rules 4-268, 9202.1, and 15-1601; and proposed amendments to current Rules 1-201, 1325, 1-332, 2-705, 3-711, 4-211, 4-213.1, 4-252, 4-262, 4-263, 4-271, 4-314,
5-606, 6-209, 6-311, 9-205.3, 10-108, 10-111, 10-201, 10-202, 10-402, 10403, 11-102, 11-302, 11-405, 11-406, 11-410, 11-419, 11-420.2, 11-422, 11423, 15-1302, 16-911, 16-912, 16-914, 16-915, 16-916, 16-933, 16-934, 17105, 18-101.2 (1.2), 18-201.2, 18-204.1, 18-305, 19-306.1, 19-504, 19-607,
19-737, 19-738, and 19-752.

The Committee’s Two Hundred and Twenty-Fourth Report and the
proposed Rules changes are set forth below.

Interested persons are asked to consider the Committee’s Report and
proposed Rules changes and to forward on or before May 2, 2025 any written
comments they may wish to make to rules@mdcourts.gov or:

Sandra F. Haines, Esquire
Reporter, Rules Committee
Judiciary A-POD
580 Taylor Avenue
Annapolis, Maryland 21401

Gregory Hilton
Clerk
Supreme Court of Maryland

THE SUPREME COURT OF MARYLAND
STANDING COMMITTEE ON RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Hon. YVETTE M. BRYANT, Chair
Hon. DOUGLAS R.M. NAZARIAN, Vice Chair
SANDRA F. HAINES, Reporter
COLBY L. SCHMIDT, Deputy Reporter
HEATHER COBUN, Assistant Reporter
MEREDITH A. DRUMMOND, Assistant Reporter

Judiciary A-POD
580 Taylor Avenue
Annapolis, Maryland 21401
(410) 260-3630
EMAIL: rules@mdcourts.gov

April 2, 2025
The Honorable Matthew J. Fader,
Chief Justice
The Honorable Shirley M. Watts
The Honorable Brynja M. Booth
The Honorable Jonathan Biran
The Honorable Steven B. Gould
The Honorable Angela M. Eaves,
The Honorable Peter K. Killough
Justices
The Supreme Court of Maryland
Robert C. Murphy Courts of Appeal Building
Annapolis, Maryland 21401

Honorable Justices:
The Rules Committee submits this, its Two Hundred and Twenty-Fourth
Report, and recommends that the Court adopt the new Rules and the proposed
amendments to existing Rules in the thirteen categories submitted in this
Report, which are as follows:
CATEGORY ONE consists of proposed changes to three Rules in Title 1 –
Rule 1-332, remanded following the Court’s March 19, 2024 open meeting on
the 221st Report; Rule 1-201, through which the Committee proposes adding a
new rule of construction; and Rule 1-325, which the Court referred to the
Committee following the Court’s consideration and adoption of amendments to
the “Waiver of Costs” Rule during its October 9, 2024 open meeting on the
223rd Report.
Following discussion of Rule 1-332 at its March 19, 2024 open meeting
on the 221st Report, the Court, having expressed concern that the definition of
“person with a disability” required clarification and that the language within
the Rule should be consistent with the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42
U.S.C. § 12101, et seq. (“ADA”), remanded the Rule for the Committee’s further

consideration. The General Court Administration Subcommittee of the Rules
Committee met on June 14, 2024 to address the remanded Rule. The
Subcommittee referred the Rule to an informal drafting group consisting of
local and national ADA experts, as well as representatives from the Maryland
Judicial Council Court Access Committee. The Subcommittee met again on
December 18, 2024 to review the work of the drafting group before
recommending changes to the full Rules Committee. The resultant product
reflects a consensus reached among the experts, internal stakeholders, and the
Rules Committee.
Having reconsidered and discussed its recommendation from the 221st
Report, the Committee, which addressed the Rule at its January 10, 2025
meeting, now recommends close adherence to the Federal Government’s
definition of persons who have disabilities, with one exception. The Committee
recommends using the term “person with a disability” rather than the term
“qualified person with a disability,” in an effort to avoid confusion over
individuals who may qualify for accommodations when accessing court
services. The proposed definition otherwise tracks the language set forth in the
ADA. As drafted, the definition is intended to apply to individuals who require
accommodations, and who can be accommodated.
Through the proposed change to Rule 1-201, the Committee proposes a
rule of construction to provide that the term “statute of limitations” includes a
statute of repose.
During its October 9, 2024 open meeting on the 223rd Report, the Court
adopted amendments to Rule 1-325, allowing for a self-represented litigant to
file one waiver request that encompasses both prepaid and final waivers of
open costs. Although the Maryland Legal Aid Bureau generally supported the
proposed amendments, it sought broader consideration by way of expanding
the Rule to allow legal service organizations to operate in like fashion when
requesting a waiver. Having taken the matter under consideration, the
Committee recommends extension of the “one-waiver request” process to
individuals represented by qualified attorneys or legal service organizations
that, as part of their services, apply a vetting process to ensure that the parties
they represent fall within indigency guidelines.
CATEGORY TWO consists of changes to Rules governing criminal and
juvenile causes. This category includes proposed amendments to Rules 4-262
and 4-263, as well as proposed new Rule 4-268, pertaining to discovery in
criminal proceedings, proposed amendments to Rules 4-213.1 and Rule 4-271
pertaining to the “Hicks” requirement, and proposed amendments to Rules 4252 and 11-419, pertaining to motions in criminal and juvenile causes.

2

Proposed amendments to the criminal discovery Rules were prompted by
the Report and Recommendations of the Committee on Equal Justice Rules
Review Subcommittee (hereinafter referred to as the “EJC Report”). In March
2023, the Judicial Council approved for dissemination the EJC Report. The
Rules Review Subcommittee had as its charge the identification of Rules which
“reflect, perpetuate, or fail to correct systemic biases.” The EJC Report offers
suggestions for improving the discovery processes outlined in Rules 4-262
(Discovery in District Court) and 4-263 (Discovery in Circuit Court).
Although the Committee did not adopt, wholesale, amendments
recommended in the EJC Report, and expressly declined to impose discovery
deadlines and required sanctions in the District Court, the Committee, after
considering both criminal discovery Rules, found value in recommending
inclusion of a Committee note that acknowledges “open file” discovery may not
be sufficient, in all cases, to satisfy the State’s discovery obligations. For
clarification, the Committee recommends outlining various sanctions that a
Court may impose upon determining there has been a failure of discovery in
Rule 4-262 (n). The Committee also recommends amending Rule 4-262
(d)(5)(C) and Rule 4-263 (d)(7)(C), to implement required disclosure of use of
facial recognition technology, as mandated by Code, Criminal Procedure
Article, § 2-504.
In addition to the above-recommended amendments, the Committee
recommends an amendment to Rule 4-263, suggested by the EJC Report, that
includes guidance related to requirements set forth in Code, Courts Article, §
10-924, pertaining to an in-custody witness who may receive a benefit in
exchange for testimony. Stylistic changes to both Rules also are recommended,
in order to conform various subsections to structural changes.
Finally, as pertains to discovery, the Committee proposes the addition of
Rule 4-268, implementing the mandate of Code, Courts Article, § 10-924(e)
that, upon request, a court must conduct a hearing prior to admitting
testimony of an in-custody witness to determine whether a State’s Attorney has
complied with disclosure requirements.
Amendments to Rules 4-213.1 and 4-271 are proposed as a result of a
question raised by a trial judge, primarily to clarify the intent to limit the
impact of limited appearances, such as appearances at bail hearings, on the
“Hicks Rule,” since neither Code, Criminal Procedure Article, § 6-103 nor Rule
4-271 directly address whether the “appearance of counsel” includes entry of a
limited appearance, as permitted in Rule 4-213.1.
In considering the proposed amendments, the Reporter’s staff recognized
that language regarding automatic termination of provisional representation by
the Public Defender was inadvertently removed from the Rule when, following
3

the 183rd Report, the language previously set forth in Rule 4-216 (e)(2) was
moved to new Rule 4-213.1 (g). The modification set forth in section (g) seeks
to correct this error, to conform the Rule to Code, Criminal Procedure Article,
§ 16-210(d)(3), and to correct the word “commission” to “commissioner.”
The proposed amendment to Rule 4-271 seeks to clarify that the time for
setting the trial date begins once an attorney enters an appearance pursuant to
Rule 4-214.
Amendments to Rules 4-252 and 11-419 are designed to bring attention
to Code, Criminal Procedure Article, § 2-502, which, with limited exceptions,
prohibits admissibility of facial recognition technology, and to raise awareness
of the potential need to raise admissibility concerns by way of a motion.
Proposed amendments to Rules 4-314, 11-102, 11-422, and 11-423
conform the Rules to Chapter 444, 2024 Laws of Maryland (HB 432), through
which the General Assembly made technical amendments to several statutes
by replacing the term “mental retardation” with the term “intellectual
disability.” Additionally, as pertains to Rule 11-102, a proposed amendment
adds to the cross-reference following section (a) the term “labor trafficking,”
following the General Assembly’s inclusion of that defined term in Code, Courts
Article, § 3-801. Finally, minor stylistic changes are made to the cross
references in Rule 11-422 and 11-423.
An amendment to Rule 11-302 conforms a cross reference in the Rule to
Chapters 348/349, 2024 Laws of Maryland (SB 550/HB 508), which shifted
the location of the “local department” in Code, Courts Article, § 3-801.
Proposed amendments to Rules 11-405 and 11-406 conform the Rules to
Code, Courts Article, §§ 3-8A-14 and 3-8A-15(k), which address requirements
for officers taking children into custody and waivers of required review hearings
for children taken into custody, respectively. An amendment to a cross
reference following Rule 11-420.2 (e) is offered to conform the reference to
Chapter 735, 2024 Laws of Maryland (HB 814), which changed the reference to
a new section in Code, Courts Article, § 3-8A-14.
CATEGORY THREE is a proposed amendment to Rule 5-606 that
emanates from the EJC Report and consideration of the impact of racial biases
on verdicts, as recognized in Peña-Rodriguez v. Colorado, 580 U.S. 206 (2017).
The proposed amendment carves out a limited exception to the prohibition
against jurors impeaching the verdict by allowing a juror to testify as to a clear
statement another juror made if the statement reveals the juror relied on a
racial or other unconstitutional stereotype or animus. Although the EJC
Report also recommended consideration of revelation of jurors’ notes, the
Committee declined to recommend any change to the manner in which courts
4

address jurors’ notes, choosing to continue to follow the American Bar
Association’s recommendation that jurors’ notes be collected and destroyed
post-trial.
CATEGORY FOUR addresses issues related to family law matters.
Proposed new Rule 9-202.1 and amendments to Rule 9-205.3 are in this
category.
Proposed new Rule 9-202.1 resulted from the EJC Report, which
suggested that the Committee, “in collaboration with the Child Support
Workgroup of the Domestic Law Committee,” review the service provisions of
Rule 1-321 to determine whether the existing procedural process is unfair to
low-income litigants. The Child Support Workgroup identified two barriers to
timely resolution of child support modifications: difficulty serving the motion
and the inability to file a modification motion as a counterclaim to a contempt
proceeding filed by the Child Support Administration. A key issue
undergirding the concern is the legislative prohibition against retroactive
modification of child support obligations. The prohibition against retroactivity,
in many instances, results in a lost opportunity to lower one’s support
obligation where a case cannot be completed due to a lack of service.
In an attempt to address the concern that cases are either dismissed or
bottle-necked due to service issues, the proposed new Rule establishes a path
to service via electronic means and permits counterclaims requesting
modification to be filed in contempt actions.
Proposed amendments to Rule 9-205.3 are designed to address bills
introduced in the General Assembly in 2024 (SB 365/HB 405) that outlined
qualifications and trainings for court-appointed custody evaluators, as well as
addressed the introduction of expert testimony in cases involving alleged abuse
by one parent. Similar bills were introduced in the 2025 Session of the
General Assembly (SB 25/HB 152). The proposed amendments to Rule 9205.3 are designed to address legislators’ desire to ensure that evaluators
receive appropriate training, including training in intimate partner violence,
child abuse, and related issues, as well as rework the Rule for purposes of
clarification.
Legislators also appeared to have a concern that educational and
training requirements should not be waived. The proposed amendments make
clear that while a waiver of educational and licensure requirements is possible
(a waiver of limited impact), training waivers are not permitted and continuing
education requirements must be met.
CATEGORY FIVE involves proposed amendments to various
guardianship rules.
5

A proposed amendment to Rule 10-111 was prompted by Chapters
11/12, 2024 Laws of Maryland (SB 411/HB 431), which renamed the Maryland
Department of Veterans Affairs to the Department of Veterans and Military
Families. Because the name mirrors that used by the federal government, the
Reporter undertook a contextual review of each reference to a “Department of
Veterans Affairs” in the Rules in an effort to determine whether any pertained
to the State agency. The Reporter determined that Rule 10-111 contains an
incorrect reference to an “Administrator” of the Department. Thus, the
Committee recommends this “housekeeping” amendment.
Amendments to Rules 10-201, 10-202, 10-402, and 10-403 result from
recommendations made by the Administrative Office of the Court’s Juvenile &
Family Services.
An amendment to Rule 10-201 seeks to clarify that a petition for an
expedited hearing in connection to a need for medical treatment may be filed
concurrently with or at any time following the filing of a petition for
guardianship. Amendments to Rule 10-202 replace the term “disabled person”
with the term “alleged disabled person,” which refers to the individual’s status,
pre-adjudication.
An amendment to Rule 10-402 would remove the requirement that a
candidate for standby guardianship disclose pending charges, since the
requirement, although added to the Rule, is not required by Code, Estates &
Trusts, § 11-114. The Code, rather, only imposes a prohibition on
appointment of individuals who have been convicted of certain crimes, absent a
showing of good cause. A second amendment to the Rule would eliminate a
reference in section (e) to the court ruling without a hearing, since Rule 10-404
requires a hearing on any petition filed pursuant to Rule 10-402. The
Committee recommends replacing the current language with an admonishment
that the court may rule on a petition without the recipient’s input if the
recipient fails to respond to the petition.
As is the case with Rule 10-402, the Committee recommends removing
from Rule 10-403 the requirement that a candidate for standby guardian
disclose pending charges.
CATEGORY SIX contains a proposed new Rule concerning derivative
actions. Senior Appellate Judge James Eyler suggested to the Committee that
a Rule concerning derivative actions would provide important guidance to
practitioners who could benefit from uniformity in understanding how best to
initiate and maintain derivative actions. Along with Senior Judge Ronald
Rubin and members of the Maryland State Bar Association’s Business Law
Section, Senior Appellate Judge Eyler presented to the Committee a proposed
new Rule, modeled after Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.1 and Delaware law. The
6

Committee, agreeing that such a Rule would provide guidance to attorneys as
well as promote uniformity in the State, recommends proposed new Rule 151601.
CATEGORY SEVEN comprises a proposed amendment to Rule 17-105,
involving confidentiality in mediation proceedings. The Administrative Office of
the Court’s Juvenile & Family Services requested clarification surrounding the
confidentiality of screening tools and the processes that courts use in
determining whether a matter should be referred for mediation, as may be
required by Rule 9-205.
The Committee learned that screening for potential abuse and/or
coercive control differs by jurisdiction, and the decision of whether to refer a
case to mediation could be based on paper screening, interviews, or use of the
piloted Mediators Assessment of Safety Issues and Concerns – Short (“MASICS”). Based on concerns raised by attorneys about confidentiality of screening
tools and information, Juvenile & Family Services requested clarification
concerning confidentiality of screening communications.
To eliminate confusion and to ensure that all jurisdictions hold
confidential all communications associated with the screening process, the
Committee recommends modifying Rule 17-105 by adding new section (f),
which generally provides that written documentation, as well as statements,
used to screen cases for mediation are confidential and disclosure of such
communications may not be compelled. The amendment also recognizes
section (f)’s subjectivity to section (b), which does prohibit parties from
disclosing details of mediation in court, but not in their personal lives.
CATEGORY EIGHT involves proposed amendments to several Rules in
Title 19, namely, Rules 19-737, 19-738, 19-752, 19-504, and 19-607. The
proposed amendments to Rules 19-737 (d)(1) and 19-738 (d), suggested by the
Clerk of the Supreme Court, seek to clarify that the time for an attorney to
respond to a show cause order runs from the time of service, rather than the
date the show cause order was issued.
Amendments to Rule 19-752 were borne of a listening session for the
EJC Report, at which time an attorney raised a concern that the reasons Bar
Counsel may oppose or support a petition for reinstatement are not always
discernable because the Rule, as currently drafted, does not require Bar
Counsel to include reasons for the opposition or support. The Committee
recommends amendment of section (e) to require Bar Counsel to provide the
reasons Bar Counsel opposes or supports a petition for reinstatement.
Additionally, in light of the fact that the Rule contains no mechanism for Bar
Counsel to seek an extension of time to respond, the EJC Report recommended
that Bar Counsel be permitted to seek an extension, but only for good cause
7

shown. The Committee recommends that Bar Counsel be permitted to request
an extension within the time period designated for a response; however, the
Committee does not recommend requiring a showing a good cause in the
language of the Rule. The Court may determine whether an extension is
appropriate.
Amendments to Rules 19-504 and 19-607 are recommended for
“housekeeping,” rather than substantive reasons. Rule 19-504 should be
amended to update internal references.
The amendment to 19-607 is also a “housekeeping” amendment;
however, it differs from Rule 19-504 in that the internal reference in need of
correction resulted from a 2016 typographical error that led the Rule to contain
an incorrect reference to payment methods, rather than a correct reference to
temporary suspension where an attorney fails to repay funds for a dishonored
check. The amendment will fix the typographical error by adding a correct
reference that pertains to temporary suspension.
CATEGORY NINE includes proposed amendments to Rules governing
access to judicial records.
Amendments to Rule 16-911 (f) implement Chapters 414/415, 2024
Laws of Maryland (HB 664/SB 575), the Judge Andrew F. Wilkinson Judicial
Security Act. The Act creates the Office of Information Privacy (“OIP”) in the
Administrative Office of the Courts. The Committee proposes the amendments
to ensure that the OIP’s records are treated as “administrative records” by
making clear that records created or maintained by the OIP are shielded from
public inspection.
Amendments to Rule 16-912 conform the Rule to a revision in Code,
Family Law Article, § 2-301, enacted as Chapter 175, 2022 Laws of Maryland
(HB 83), which prohibits minors under the age of 17 from marrying.
Amendments to Rule 16-914 implement Chapter 347, 2024 Laws of
Maryland (SB 19), codified as Code, Real Property Article, § 8-503, which
requires the District Court, without request, to shield certain landlord-tenant
actions if a failure to pay rent case does not result in a judgment of possession.
The proposed amendments require the custodian to deny inspection if the
records are shielded pursuant to the statute.
Amendments to Rule 4-211 implement Chapters 877/878, 2024 Laws of
Maryland (SB 111/HB 458), which prohibit public access to minor victims’
identifying information in criminal or delinquency matters. The proposed
change would implement a requirement that individuals filing such matters
must alert the Clerk of Court that filings contain non-public information that
must be redacted.
8

Amendments to Rule 11-410 also implement Chapters 877/878, 2024
Laws of Maryland (SB 111/HB 458). The proposed Rule change requires a
juvenile court, in a waiver order, to order the State’s Attorney or other filer to
ensure redaction of a minor victim’s identifying information or other restricted
information in a case record prior to transfer of the record to the court
exercising criminal jurisdiction.
An amendment to Rule 16-915 also implements the bill, by adding a
section that requires the custodian of records to deny inspection of a case
record that would reveal the name or other identifying information of a minor
victim in a criminal or delinquency action where the juvenile court waives
jurisdiction.
Rule 16-916 (b)(2) currently allows filers to notify the custodian that a
part of a case record filed prior to July 1, 2016 should be shielded from public
access. A proposed amendment to that Rule would permit either the filer, or
someone acting on behalf of the subject of a case record, to notify the clerk of
non-public information in the case record, regardless of when the record was
filed. The amendment also permits the Clerk of Court to refer the matter to a
judge for consideration if the Clerk requires guidance on whether a particular
record should be shielded.
In Rules 10-108 and 15-1302, cross-references are updated to conform
to the proposed amendments to Rule 16-915, which re-letter sections of that
Rule.
Amendments to Rule 16-933 are proposed to address vexatious,
frivolous, or repetitious requests for access to judicial records. Through new
subsection (a)(2), the Committee recommends permitting the State Court
Administrator (“SCA”) to seek relief pursuant to the Maryland Declaratory
Judgment Act. The proposed amendments also seek to make clear that both
the right to seek relief and the time for filing a response to a request apply
equally to the SCA and to the individual requesting access.
Amendments to Rule 16-934 are recommended at the behest of the Chief
Judge of the District Court. According to the Chief Judge, a process is
necessary to allow the District Court to rule on a motion to preclude or limit
inspection of a case record where there exists, on the face of the motion, no
basis to grant the motion. The amendment will help to address the significant
increase in the volume of non-meritorious motions now being presented to the
court.
CATEGORY TEN involves a recommendation for amendments to Rule 3711, predicated upon a concern raised by the Access to Counsel in Evictions
Task Force, established by Chapter 746, 2021 Laws of Maryland (HB 18). The
9

law requires landlords to provide a notice of intent to evict, and to notify
tenants of the right to speak with an attorney provided by a legal service
organization when facing an eviction proceeding. In enacting the legislation,
the General Assembly determined that the required written notice must be in a
form created by the Judiciary. A form was created for use by landlords;
however, the Task Force and service providers advised the Rules Committee
that landlords were not always using the standard form. The Court Access
Committee of the Judicial Council considered the concern and recommended a
Rule change requiring that notice be provided in the form approved by the
State Court Administrator.
The Rules Committee’s District Court Subcommittee considered the
request of the Task Force and Court Access Committee that the form approved
by the State Court Administrator be mandatory; however, the Subcommittee
preferred to allow use of a document “substantially in the form approved by the
State Court Administrator.” Representatives of the Task Force requested that
the Rules Committee remove the word “substantially,” arguing that Code, Real
Property, § 8-401 requires strict compliance by use of the Judiciary’s form.
The Committee recommends use of the Judiciary’s form, in deference to the
General Assembly’s intent, evidenced by language that reads “the notice shall
be in a form created by the Judiciary.”
The Court Access Committee also requested that Rule 3-711 require that
the landlord include a copy of the notice when filing a complaint, but a similar
provision was proposed during the 2024 Session of the General Assembly, and
was removed prior to the passage of Chapter 124, 2024 Laws of Maryland (HB
693). The Committee decided not to include such an amendment, since the
General Assembly opted out of adding that requirement.
CATEGORY ELEVEN consists of proposed amendments to Rules 6-209
and 6-311. The proposed amendments implement Chapters 318/319, 2024
Laws of Maryland (SB 80/HB 326), which limit those who may object to the
notice of appointment of a personal representative of a small or large estate to
“all interested persons and unpaid claimants.”
CATEGORY TWELVE brings before the Court proposals to amend Rules
18-101.2 and 18-201.2, which the Court remanded following consideration of
the Committee’s proposed amendments during the March 19, 2024 open
meeting on the 221st Report. The EJC Report recommended adding provisions
to various Rules in Title 4 to remind judges of the existence of implicit bias.
The Committee observed that implicit bias could affect other kinds of
proceedings, as well as criminal proceedings. Accordingly, the Committee
drafted the Title 1 and Title 18 Rules changes, which the Court considered
during the March open meeting.
10

At the March open meeting, the Court was asked to consider proposed
new Rule 1-342, which included a general reminder to judicial personnel of the
need for awareness of how the public may construe the manner in which
judicial statements or decisions are expressed and enforced and to avoid
making statements or taking actions others may feel indicates an unintended
bias. Additionally, the Court was asked to consider amendments to Rules 18102.3 and 18-202.3, which proposed adding comments discussing implicit
bias.
Upon remand, the Committee was charged to reconsider the language
used, in light of the Court’s discussion, as well as to relocate the contents of
proposed Rule 1-342 to Rules 18-101.2 and 18.201.2. Additionally, the
Committee was encouraged to consider developing a Title 1 Rule that serves as
an aspirational policy for the Judiciary. In lieu of a Title 1 Rule, the Committee
recommends the Preamble submitted for the Court’s consideration.
The proposed amendments to Rules 18-101.2 and 18.201.2 are modeled
after the existing provisions in the Rule but also caution judges and judicial
appointees to avoid conduct that would create in reasonable minds a
perception of bias based on certain enumerated traits. Proposed new Comment
6 provides judges guidance to remain alert for the potential for an appearance
of bias, guidance that is based in part on Belton v. State, 483 Md. 523 (2023),
and based in part on the Court’s comments during the March 2024 open
meeting.
CATEGORY THIRTEEN consists of proposed “housekeeping”
amendments to four Rules. The amendment to Rule 2-705 corrects a
grammatical error in section (a). Amendments to Rules 18-204.1 and 19-306.1
correct typographical errors. Amendments to Rule 18-305 replace several
incorrect references to Rules 18-703 and 18-704 with correct references to
Rules 18-603 and 18-604, respectively.
For the further guidance of the Court and the public, following the
proposed new Preamble, each proposed new Rule, and the proposed
amendments to each existing Rule is a Reporter’s note describing in further
detail the reasons for the proposals. We caution that the Reporter’s notes are
not part of the Rules, have not been debated or approved by the Committee,
and are not to be regarded as any kind of official comment or interpretation.
They are included solely to assist the Court in understanding some of the
reasons for the proposed changes.

11

Respectfully Submitted,
/s/
Yvette M. Bryant
Chair

cc: Hon. Douglas R. M. Nazarian, Vice Chair
Greg Hilton, Clerk

12

RULE 1-332
MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE
TITLE 1 – GENERAL PROVISIONS
CHAPTER 300 – GENERAL PROVISIONS
AMEND Rule 1-332 by retitling the Rule “Reasonable Accommodations
for Persons with Disabilities”; by re-titling section (a) as “Applicability” and
adding a statement of applicability; by adding new section letter (b) before
“Definitions”; by adding new subsection (b)(2) defining “Person with a
Disability” with a cross reference following the subsection; by adding new
subsection (b)(3) defining “Reasonable Accommodation”; by renumbering
current subsection (a)(2) as (b)(4); by re-lettering current section (b) as section
(c) and by changing the tagline to “Request for Reasonable Accommodation”; by
deleting the tagline of re-lettered subsection (c)(1) and replacing it with
“Generally”; by clarifying in re-lettered subsection (c)(1) who may request a
reasonable accommodation; by adding a Committee note following re-lettered
subsection (c)(1); by creating new subsection (c)(2) containing provisions from
current subsection (b)(1), with amendments; by adding a Committee note after
new subsection (c)(2); by adding new section (d) governing the procedure when
a reasonable accommodation is requested; by adding new subsection (d)(1) and
a Committee note pertaining to the authority to make an accommodation
determination; by adding new subsection (d)(2) and a Committee note
pertaining to the interactive process; by adding new subsection (d)(3) and a
Committee note pertaining to the factors for consideration; by re-lettering
current subsection (b)(2) as new subsection (d)(4) and modifying the tagline; by
13

RULE 1-332
adding a provision to new subsection (d)(4) referring to compliance with Rule 1333 (c); by deleting current subsection (b)(3); by adding new subsection (d)(5)
pertaining to notice of the court’s determination; by adding new section (e)
requiring publication of data on accommodation requests; and by making
stylistic changes, as follows:
Rule 1-332. ACCOMMODATION UNDER THE AMERICANS WITH
DISABILITIES ACT REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS FOR PERSONS WITH
DISABILITIES
(a) Applicability
This Rule applies to accommodations for persons with disabilities.
(b) Definitions
In this Rule, the following definitions apply except as otherwise expressly
provided or as necessary implication requires:
(1) ADA
“ADA” means the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et
seq.
(2) Person with a Disability
“Person with a disability” means an individual with a disability who
meets the essential eligibility requirements for the receipt of services or the
participation in court services, programs, or activities, with or without
reasonable modifications to policies, practices, or procedures, the removal of

14

RULE 1-332
architectural, communication, or transportation barriers, or the provision of
auxiliary aids and services.
Cross reference: See 42 U.S.C. § 12131.
(3) Reasonable Accommodation
“Reasonable accommodation” means a measure necessary to provide a
person with a disability the opportunity to access a court service, program, or
activity in a manner consistent with State and federal law. A reasonable
accommodation may include:
(A) a reasonable modification in policy, practice, or procedure;
(B) a reasonable modification to a deadline or time limit that Rule 1-204
permits to be modified but that does not alter a statutory deadline or a statute
of limitations;
(C) remote participation by a party or witness in accordance with Title 21 of
these Rules;
(D) an auxiliary aid or service other than a personal device, including
equipment, that is made available without charge; and
Committee note: An auxiliary aid or service may include a qualified interpreter
or other effective method of making aurally delivered materials available to an
individual who is deaf or hard of hearing; a qualified reader, taped text, or
another effective method of making visually delivered materials available to an
individual who is blind or has low vision; acquisition or modification of
equipment or devices; and other similar services and actions. See 42 U.S.C. §
12103, 28 C.F.R. § 35.104, and 28 C.F.R. § 35.160.
(E) recognition of a supported decision-making arrangement entered
pursuant to Code, Estates and Trusts Article, Title 18.
(2)(4) Victim

15

RULE 1-332
“Victim” includes a victim's representative as defined in Code, Criminal
Procedure Article, § 11-104.
(b) Accommodation Under the ADA (c) Request for Reasonable
Accommodation
(1) Notification of Need for Accommodation Generally
A person An attorney, party, witness, victim, juror, prospective juror, or
member of the public requesting an a reasonable accommodation under the
ADA or other applicable Maryland or federal law for an attorney, a party, a
witness, a victim, a juror, or a prospective juror promptly shall notify the court
of the request.
Committee note: An individual authorized to act on behalf of the person with a
disability or with the permission of the person with a disability may request an
accommodation.
(2) Submission
To the extent practicable, a request for an a reasonable accommodation
shall be (1)(A) presented on a form approved by administrative order of the
Supreme Court the State Court Administrator, posted on the Judiciary website,
and available from the clerk of the court and on the Judiciary website and
(2)(B) submitted to the court not less than 30 days before the proceeding for
which the accommodation is requested. The request should include a case
number, if applicable, but need not be filed in a particular action or served on
any other party.
Committee note: This Rule does not impose a strict 30-day filing deadline and
recognizes that advance notice is not always practicable for all requests for
accommodation. Reasonable advance notice is required to the extent feasible
so that a court or staff can implement reasonable accommodations.
16

RULE 1-332
Insufficient advance notice may prevent the provision of a reasonable
accommodation.
(d) Determination of Request
(1) Authority to Determine
The court shall consider a reasonable accommodation request that
pertains to a motion before the court, the rescheduling of a case, or any other
matter that involves the administration of court proceedings or the substantive
rights of litigants. The court may approve the requested accommodation, deny
the requested accommodation, or offer an alternative accommodation. The
court may designate the ADA coordinator to consider and determine other
requests.
Committee note: Accommodation requests that may be considered and
determined administratively include requests that involve facilities, furniture,
and other available accommodations that do not involve substantive issues or
affect court procedure.
(2) Interactive Process
The court or designated ADA coordinator shall review the request and, if
appropriate, engage the requestor in an interactive process to determine a
reasonable accommodation.
Cross reference: See In the Matter of Chavis, 486 Md. 247 (2023), pertaining to
procedures and standards for evaluating a request for reasonable
accommodations under the ADA.
(3) Factors – Generally
In determining what, if any, accommodation to grant, the court or the
ADA coordinator shall:

17

RULE 1-332
(A) consider (i) the provisions of the ADA and applicable federal regulations
adopted under the ADA; (ii) Code, State Government Article, §§ 20-304 and 20901; (iii) Code, Courts Article, § 9-114; (iv) Code, Criminal Procedure Article, §§
1-202 and 3-103; and (v) other applicable Maryland and federal law;
(B) give primary consideration to the accommodation requested;
(C) consider whether an accommodation would result in (i) a fundamental
alteration of the nature of a court service, program, or activity or (ii) an undue
financial and administrative burden; and
(D) make the determination on an individual and case-specific basis, with
due regard to the nature of the disability and the feasibility of the requested
accommodation.
Committee note: In considering reasonable accommodations for a person with
a disability, the primary focus is on providing accommodations that enable the
individual to participate in or qualify for a program, service, or activity. The
focus must not be on the extent of the individual’s impairment.
(2)(4) Request for Sign Language Interpreter
The If the accommodation requested is the provision of a sign language
interpreter, the court shall determine whether a sign language interpreter is
needed in accordance with the requirements of the ADA;, Code, Courts Article,
§ 9-114;, and Code, Criminal Procedure Article, §§ 1-202 and 3-103. If the
request is granted, the court shall appoint a sign language interpreter in
accordance with Rule 1-333 (c).
(3) Provision of Accommodation

18

RULE 1-332
The court shall provide an accommodation if one is required under the
ADA. If the accommodation is the provision of a sign language interpreter, the
court shall appoint one in accordance with Rule 1-333 (c).
(5) Notification of Determination
The court or ADA coordinator promptly shall notify the requestor of its
accommodation determination. If a requested accommodation is denied, the
court or ADA coordinator shall specify the reason for the denial.
(e) Publication of Data on Accommodation Requests
Each court shall submit an annual report to the State Court
Administrator, without identifying information and in a manner that protects
the identities of those requesting accommodations, containing (1) data on the
number and types of reasonable accommodation requests submitted, (2) the
types of reasonable accommodations granted, and (3) the number of reasonable
accommodation requests denied. The State Court Administrator shall publish
a compilation of the data on the Judiciary website.
Source: This Rule is new.

REPORTER’S NOTE
Proposed amendments to Rule 1-332 update and clarify the procedures
for requesting, considering, and providing reasonable accommodations to
individuals with disabilities seeking to access Maryland courts. The Supreme
Court considered proposed amendments to Rule 1-332 at an open meeting on
the 221st Report on March 19, 2024. After discussion, the Court remanded the
Rule to the Committee for further study. The Court instructed the Committee
to ensure that the language in the proposed Rule is consistent with the
Americans with Disabilities Act (“the ADA”) and provides at least the same
minimum protections.
19

RULE 1-332
The General Court Administration Subcommittee discussed a proposed
draft in response to the remand at its June 14, 2024 meeting. After
considering the comments made by consultants, the Subcommittee referred the
Rule to an informal drafting group consisting of local and national ADA experts
and representatives from the Maryland Judicial Council Court Access
Committee. Rules Committee staff worked with subject matter experts over the
summer and the resulting draft generally reflects the consensus among these
experts as well as internal stakeholders. The General Court Administration
Subcommittee met again on December 18, 2024 and considered proposed
amendments recommended by the drafting group.
The Rule is proposed to be renamed to address accommodations more
broadly for persons with disabilities instead of only accommodations under the
ADA. New section (a) addresses the broader application.
Several definitions are added to new section (b). “Person with a
disability” is defined in new subsection (b)(2). The reworked definition is
derived from the ADA (42 U.S.C. § 12131). The ADA uses the term “qualified
person with a disability,” but the drafting group suggested avoidance of the
term “qualified” as it may lead to confusion. The Subcommittee discussed the
necessity and clarity of the definition, concluding that it is helpful to set forth
to whom the Rule applies. The Subcommittee was informed that an individual
may have a disability but not require any accommodation to access the courts.
Conversely, there may be individuals who cannot be accommodated due to the
various provisions of the ADA that rule out accommodations that would impose
a substantial burden on the court. The definition narrows the applicability of
the Rule to individuals who require accommodations and who can be
accommodated.
The proposed definition for “reasonable accommodation” in new
subsection (b)(3) is similar to the definition of “accommodation” proposed in the
221st Report, with some changes. “Reasonable accommodation” is a term used
throughout the ADA. It more accurately reflects the Act’s requirements since
an entity is only required to make accommodations that are reasonable,
meaning consistent with State and federal law. The drafting group suggested
the expansion of the Committee note following the subsection on auxiliary aids
and services to provide guidance on types of auxiliary aids and services,
derived in part from 42 U.S.C. § 12103. Statutory references are included in
the Committee note. A new subsection (b)(3)(E) pertaining to supported
decision-making arrangements was also suggested by the drafting group.
Section (c) governs the request for a reasonable accommodation. The
drafting group discussed how to permit a third party to make a request on
behalf of a person with a disability without encouraging unwanted intervention,
which undercuts the autonomy of the person with the disability. The group
ultimately recommended the addition of a provision that notice may come from
another individual authorized to act on that individual’s behalf. This is

20

RULE 1-332
reflected in the Committee note. The drafting group also suggested clarifying
that the request does not have to be filed in an action or served on any party.
The Committee note following subsection (c)(2) is rephrased from the way it was
presented in the 221st Report to clarify that an accommodation request is
allowed to be made less than 30 days before the proceeding but cautions that
insufficient notice may prevent the accommodation being provided.
Section (d) is significantly restructured from its 221st Report version.
Subsection (d)(1) sets forth the accommodation requests that must be
considered by a judge in contrast to accommodations that may be determined
by the designated ADA coordinator. Subsection (d)(2) adds the concept of an
interactive process. The drafting group advised that the prior proposed
language implied that the person with a disability made an accommodation
request and the court or ADA coordinator granted or denied that request. In
practice, if the request for accommodation cannot be granted, the court should
engage in a dialogue with the requester to consider alternatives. A cross
reference to a recent case on the procedures and standards for evaluating a
request for reasonable accommodations provides additional guidance. The
factors in subsection (d)(3) are modified from the 221st version to correct
citations and make stylistic changes. They are derived from State and federal
laws and regulations.
New section (e) establishes certain reporting requirements regarding
requests for reasonable accommodations and the accommodations granted and
denied.

21

RULE 1-201
MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE
TITLE 1 – GENERAL PROVISIONS
CHAPTER 200 – CONSTRUCTION, INTERPRETATION, AND DEFINITIONS
AMEND Rule 1-201 by adding new section (f), as follows:
Rule 1-201. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION
(a) General
These rules shall be construed to secure simplicity in procedure, fairness
in administration, and elimination of unjustifiable expense and delay. When a
rule, by the word “shall” or otherwise, mandates or prohibits conduct, the
consequences of noncompliance are those prescribed by these rules or by
statute. If no consequences are prescribed, the court may compel compliance
with the rule or may determine the consequences of the noncompliance in light
of the totality of the circumstances and the purpose of the rule.
(b) Jurisdiction and Venue Unaffected
These rules shall not be construed to extend or limit the jurisdiction of any
court or, except as expressly provided, the venue of actions.
(c) Effect on Common Law and Statutory Provisions
Neither these rules nor omissions from these rules supersede common law
or statute unless inconsistent with these rules.
(d) Singular and Plural – Gender
Words in the singular include the plural and words in any gender include
all genders except as necessary implication requires.
22

RULE 1-201
(e) Headings, References, and Notes Not Rules
Headings, subheadings, cross references, committee notes, source
references, and annotations are not part of these rules.
(f) Statute of Limitations
The term “statute of limitations” includes a statute of repose, except as
necessary implication requires.
Source: This Rule is derived as follows:
Section (a) is in part consistent with the 1966 version of Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 and is
derived from former Rule 701. The last two sentences are new.
Section (b) is derived from former Rule 1 h and i.
Section (c) is derived from former Rules 1 g and 701.
Section (d) is derived from former Rule 2 c.
Section (e) is derived from former Rule 2 b.
Section (f) is new.

REPORTER’S NOTE
The proposed amendment to Rule 1-201 adds a rule of constitution to
clarify that “statute of limitations” includes a statute of repose, except as
necessary implication requires. “Statute of limitations” is used in several
locations in the Rules and in most contexts would include a statute of repose
(e.g., Rules 2-101, 2-323, 2-506, 3-101, and 19-301.3). It is also used in the
proposed amendments to Rule 1-332.

23

RULE 1-325
MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE
TITLE 1 – GENERAL PROVISIONS
CHAPTER 300 – GENERAL PROVISIONS
AMEND Rule 1-325 by adding “Request for Court Waiver of Open Costs”
to the tagline of section (d); by creating new subsection (d)(1) with the existing
provisions of section (d); by re-lettering current subsections (d)(1) and (d)(2) as
(d)(1)(A) and (d)(1)(B), respectively; by re-lettering current subsections (d)(1)(A)
and (d)(1)(B) as (d)(1)(A)(i) and (d)(1)(A)(ii), respectively; by re-lettering current
subsections (d)(1)(A)(i) through (d)(1)(A)(iii) as (d)(1)(A)(i)(a) through (d)(1)(A)(i)(c),
respectively; by adding new subsection (d)(2) governing a request for waiver of
open costs; by adding a reference to new subsection (d)(2) to subsections
(f)(2)(A) and (f)(2)(B); by updating the affidavit requirement in subsection
(f)(2)(B); and by making stylistic changes, as follows:
Rule 1-325. WAIVER OF COSTS DUE TO INDIGENCE – GENERALLY
(a) Scope
This Rule applies only to (1) original civil actions in a circuit court or the
District Court and (2) requests for relief that are civil in nature filed in a
criminal action.
Committee note: Original civil actions in a circuit court include actions
governed by the Rules in Title 7, Chapter 200, 300, and 400. Requests for
relief that are civil in nature filed in a criminal action include petitions for
expungement and requests to shield all or part of a record.
(b) Definition

24

RULE 1-325
In this Rule, “prepaid costs” means costs that, unless prepayment is
waived pursuant to this Rule, must be paid prior to the clerk's docketing or
accepting for docketing a pleading or paper or taking other requested action.
Committee note: “Prepaid costs” may include a fee to file an initial complaint
or a motion to reopen a case, a fee for entry of the appearance of an attorney,
and any prepaid compensation, fee, or expense of a magistrate or examiner.
See Rules 1-501, 2-541, 2-542, 2-603, and 9-208.
(c) No Fee for Filing Request
No filing fee shall be charged for the filing of the request for waiver of
prepaid costs pursuant to section (d) or (e) of this Rule.
(d) Waiver of Prepaid Costs by Clerk; Request for Court Waiver of Open Costs
(1) Prepaid Costs
On written request, the clerk shall waive the prepayment of prepaid
costs, without the need for a court order, if:
(1)(A) the party is an individual who is represented (A)(i) by an attorney
retained through a pro bono or legal services program on a list of programs
serving low income low-income individuals that is submitted by the Maryland
Legal Services Corporation to the State Court Administrator and posted on the
Judiciary website, provided that an authorized agent of the program provides
the clerk with a statement that (i)(a) names the program, attorney, and party;
(ii)(b) states that the attorney is associated with the program and the party
meets the financial eligibility criteria of the Corporation; and (iii)(c) attests that
the payment of filing fees is not subject to Code, Courts Article, § 5-1002 (the
Prisoner Litigation Act), or (B)(ii) by an attorney provided by the Maryland Legal
Aid Bureau, Inc. or the Office of the Public Defender, and
25

RULE 1-325
(2)(B) except for an attorney employed or appointed by the Office of the
Public Defender in a civil action in which that Office is required by statute to
represent the party, the attorney certifies that, to the best of the attorney's
knowledge, information, and belief, there is good ground to support the claim,
application, or request for process and it is not interposed for any improper
purpose or delay.
Committee note: The Public Defender represents indigent individuals in a
number of civil actions. See Code, Criminal Procedure Article, § 16-204(b).
Cross reference: See Rule 1-311 (b) and Rule 19-303.1 (3.1) of the Maryland
Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct.
(2) Request for Waiver of Open Costs at Conclusion of Action
A request under subsection (d)(1) of this Rule may include a request for
final waiver of open costs by the court at the conclusion of the action. The
request for final waiver of open costs shall include the attorney’s certification
that the attorney’s client signed an affidavit stating that the client does not
anticipate a material change in the financial information contained in the
client’s application for representation. The court shall consider the request at
the conclusion of the action in accordance with section (f) of this Rule.
(e) Waiver of Costs by Court
(1) Prepaid Costs
(A) Request for Waiver
An individual unable by reason of poverty to pay a prepaid cost and not
subject to a waiver under section (d) of this Rule may file a request for an order
waiving the prepayment of the prepaid cost. The request shall be accompanied

26

RULE 1-325
by (i) the pleading or paper sought to be filed; (ii) an affidavit substantially in
the form approved by the State Court Administrator, posted on the Judiciary
website, and available in the Clerks' offices; and (iii) if the individual is
represented by an attorney, the attorney's certification that, to the best of the
attorney's knowledge, information, and belief, there is good ground to support
the claim, application, or request for process and it is not interposed for any
improper purpose or delay.
Cross reference: See Rule 1-311 (b) and Rule 19-303.1 (3.1) of the Maryland
Attorneys’ Rules of Professional Conduct.
(B) Review by Court; Factors to be Considered
The court shall review the papers presented and may require the
individual to supplement or explain any of the matters set forth in the papers.
In determining whether to grant a prepayment waiver, the court shall consider:
(i) whether the individual has a family household income that qualifies
under the client income guidelines for the Maryland Legal Services Corporation
for the current year, which shall be posted on the Judiciary website; and
(ii) any other factor that may be relevant to the individual's ability to
pay the prepaid cost.
(C) Order; Payment of Unwaived Prepaid Costs
If the court finds that the party is unable by reason of poverty to pay the
prepaid cost and that the pleading or paper sought to be filed does not appear,
on its face, to be frivolous, it shall enter an order waiving prepayment of the
prepaid cost. In its order, the court shall state the basis for granting or
denying the request for waiver. If the court denies, in whole or in part, a
27

RULE 1-325
request for the waiver of its prepaid costs, it shall permit the party, within 10
days, to pay the unwaived prepaid cost. If, within that time, the party pays the
full amount of the unwaived prepaid costs, the pleading or paper shall be
deemed to have been filed on the date the request for waiver was filed. If the
unwaived prepaid costs are not paid in full within the time allowed, the
pleading or paper shall be deemed to have been withdrawn.
(2) Request for Waiver of Open Costs at Conclusion of Action
A request under subsection (e)(1) of this Rule may include a request for
final waiver of open costs at the conclusion of the action. The request shall
indicate in the affidavit required by subsection (e)(1) of this Rule that the
individual does not anticipate a material change in the information provided in
the affidavit. The court shall consider the request at the conclusion of the
action in accordance with section (f) of this Rule.
(f) Award of Costs at Conclusion of Action
(1) Generally
At the conclusion of an action, the court and the clerk shall allocate and
award costs as required or permitted by law.
Cross reference: See Rules 2-603, 3-603, 7-116, and Mattison v. Gelber, 202
Md. App. 44 (2011).
(2) Waiver
(A) Request
At the conclusion of an action, a party who otherwise did not request a
final waiver of open costs pursuant to subsection (d)(2) or (e)(2) of this Rule
may seek a final waiver of open costs, including any unpaid appearance fee, by
28

RULE 1-325
filing a request for the waiver, together with (i) an affidavit substantially in the
form prescribed by subsection (e)(1)(B) of this Rule, or (ii) if the party was
granted a waiver of prepayment of prepaid costs by court order pursuant to
section (e) of this Rule and remains unable to pay the costs, an affidavit that
recites the existence of the prior waiver and the party's continued inability to
pay by reason of poverty.
(B) Determination by Court
In an action under Title 9, Chapter 200 of these Rules or Title 10 of
these Rules, the court shall grant a final waiver of open costs if the
requirements of Rules 2-603 (e) or 10-107 (b), as applicable, are met. In all
other civil matters, the court may grant a final waiver of open costs if the party
against whom the costs are assessed is unable to pay them by reason of
poverty. The court may require a party who requested a final waiver of open
costs pursuant to subsection (d)(2) or (e)(2) of this Rule to file the supplemental
affidavit required by subsection (f)(2)(A)(ii) of this Rule an affidavit stating that
the party (i) was granted a prior waiver of prepaid costs in the action pursuant
to this Rule and (ii) remains unable to pay the costs by reason of poverty.
Source: This Rule is new.

REPORTER’S NOTE
The Supreme Court considered proposed amendments to Rule 1-325 at
an open meeting on the 223rd Report on October 9, 2024. After discussion, the
Court adopted the proposed amendments, which generally allow for a selfrepresented litigant to file one request for both a waiver of prepaid costs and
final waiver of open costs.
29

RULE 1-325
The Court received a supportive comment on the amendments from
Maryland Legal Aid (see attached) but the comment also requested that the
proposed change be expanded to apply to waiver requests from parties
represented by qualified legal services organizations, such as Legal Aid. The
Court chose to enact the proposed amendments to Rule 1-325 as presented
and referred to the Committee the matter of expanding the applicability of the
new provisions.
Proposed amendments to Rule 1-325 extend the “one waiver request”
process to parties who are represented by qualified attorneys or legal services
organizations.
New subsection (d)(1) contains the current provisions of section (d)
governing waiver of prepaid costs. Subsections within new subsection (d)(1)
are adjusted.
New subsection (d)(2) permits a request for a waiver of prepaid costs to
include a request for final waiver of open costs. The request must include a
certification by the attorney that the client has averred that the client does not
anticipate a material change in the financial information provided to qualify for
representation by a Maryland Legal Services Corporation program. Subsection
(d)(2) instructs the court to consider the request for final waiver of open costs
at the conclusion of the action in accordance with section (f).
Subsection (f)(2) is amended to add references to a waiver requested
pursuant to subsection (d)(2). Subsection (f)(2)(B) is amended to delete
reference to the supplemental affidavit required by subsection (f)(2)(A)(ii) and
instead restates the required substance of the affidavit (“that the party (i) was
granted a prior waiver of prepaid costs in the action pursuant to this Rule and
(ii) remains unable to pay the costs by reason of poverty”). According to a Legal
Aid attorney, service providers like Legal Aid conduct a detailed review of the
income and assets of potential clients to determine their eligibility. These
reviews are done periodically during representation to ensure that clients
maintain their eligibility. Legal Aid requested that the supplemental affidavit
provision in subsection (f)(2) be stricken in light of the review process. The
provision was retained to permit judges to exercise discretion.

30

RULE 4-262
MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE
TITLE 4 – CRIMINAL CAUSES
CHAPTER 200 – PRETRIAL PROCEDURES
AMEND Rule 4-262 by adding a Committee note after subsection (c)(2);
by deleting the current tagline of subsection (d)(1); by creating new subsections
(d)(1) and (d)(2) with the language of current subsection (d)(1); by deleting the
tagline and stem language of current subsection (d)(2) requiring a defendant to
submit a written request to obtain certain disclosures; by renumbering
subsections (d)(2)(A) though (d)(2)(F) as subsections (d)(3) through (d)(8),
respectively; by adding new subsection (d)(5)(C) pertaining to facial recognition
technology; by adding clarifying language and deleting language referring to
discovery requests in section (i); by adding new language to section (n)
concerning sanctions; and by making stylistic changes, as follows:
Rule 4-262. DISCOVERY IN DISTRICT COURT
(a) Applicability
This Rule governs discovery and inspection in the District Court.
Discovery is available in the District Court in actions that are punishable by
imprisonment.
Committee note: This Rule also governs discovery in actions transferred from
District Court to circuit court upon a jury trial demand made in accordance
with Rule 4-301 (b)(1)(B). See Rule 4-301 (c).
(b) Definitions

31

RULE 4-262
In this Rule, the terms “defense,” “defense witness,” “oral statement,”
“provide,” “State's witness,” and “written statement” have the meanings stated
in Rule 4-263 (b).
Cross reference: For the definition of “State's Attorney,” see Rule 4-102 (l).
(c) Obligations of the Parties
(1) Due Diligence
The State's Attorney and defense shall exercise due diligence to identify all
of the material and information that must be disclosed under this Rule.
(2) Scope of Obligations
The obligations of the State's Attorney and the defense extend to material
and information that must be disclosed under this Rule and that are in the
possession or control of the attorney, members of the attorney's staff, or any
other person who either reports regularly to the attorney's office or has
reported to the attorney's office in regard to the particular case.
Committee note: In many jurisdictions, the State complies with discovery
requirements imposed under Rules 4-262 and 4-263 through “open file”
discovery. While, in appropriate cases, “open file” discovery may satisfy the
State’s discovery obligation, the full scope of discovery may require provision of
additional discovery material beyond that contained in the “open file,” as
expressly outlined in Rules 4-262 (c) and 4-263 (c).
Cross reference: For the obligations of the State's Attorney, see State v.
Williams, 392 Md. 194 (2006).
(d) Disclosure by the State's Attorney
(1) Without Request
Without the necessity of a request, the State's Attorney shall provide to
the defense:

32

RULE 4-262
(1) Exculpatory Information
all All material or information in any form, whether or not admissible,
that tends to exculpate the defendant or negate or mitigate the defendant's
guilt or punishment as to the offense charged;
(2) Impeachment Information
and all All material or information in any form, whether or not admissible,
that tends to impeach a State's witness.;
Cross reference: See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); Kyles v. Whitley,
514 U.S. 419 (1995); Giglio v. U.S., 405 U.S. 150 (1972); U.S. v. Agurs, 427 U.S.
97 (1976); Thomas v. State, 372 Md. 342 (2002); Goldsmith v. State, 337 Md.
112 (1995); and Lyba v. State, 321 Md. 564 (1991).
(2) On Request
On written request of the defense, the State's Attorney shall provide to the
defense:
(A)(3) Statements of Defendant and Co-defendant
All written and all oral statements of the defendant and of any codefendant that relate to the offense charged and all material and information,
including documents and recordings, that relate to the acquisition of such
statements;
(B)(4) Written Statements, Identity, and Telephone Numbers of State's
Witnesses
As to each State's witness the State's Attorney intends to call to prove
the State's case in chief or to rebut alibi testimony: (i)(A) the name of the
witness; (ii)(B) except as provided under Code, Criminal Procedure Article, § 11205 or Rule 16-934, the address and, if known to the State's Attorney, the
33

RULE 4-262
telephone number of the witness,; and (iii)(C) the statements of the witness
relating to the offense charged that are in a writing signed or adopted by the
witness or are in a police or investigative report;
(C)(5) Searches, Seizures, Surveillance, and Pretrial Identification
All relevant material or information regarding:
(i)(A) specific searches and seizures, eavesdropping, or electronic
surveillance including wiretaps; and
(ii)(B) pretrial identification of the defendant by a State's witness; and
(C) the use of facial recognition technology, in accordance with Code,
Criminal Procedure Article, § 2-504;
Committee note: In addition to disclosure of a pretrial identification of a
defendant by a State's witness, in some cases, disclosure of a pretrial
identification of a co-defendant by a State's witness also may be required. See
Green v. State, 456 Md. 97 (2017).
(D)(6) Reports or Statements of Experts
As to each State's witness the State's Attorney intends to call to testify as
an expert witness other than at a preliminary hearing:
(i)(A) the expert's name and address, the subject matter on which the
expert is expected to testify, the substance of the expert's findings and
opinions, and a summary of the grounds for each opinion;
(ii)(B) the opportunity to inspect and copy all written reports or statements
made in connection with the action by the expert, including the results of any
physical or mental examination, scientific test, experiment, or comparison; and
(iii)(C) the substance of any oral report and conclusion by the expert;
(E)(7) Evidence for Use at Trial
34

RULE 4-262
The opportunity to inspect, copy, and photograph all documents,
computer-generated evidence as defined in Rule 2-504.3 (a), recordings,
photographs, or other tangible things that the State's Attorney intends to use
at a hearing or at trial; and
(F)(8) Property of the Defendant
The opportunity to inspect, copy, and photograph all items obtained
from or belonging to the defendant, whether or not the State's Attorney intends
to use the item at a hearing or at trial.
(e) Disclosure by Defense
On written request of the State's Attorney, the defense shall provide to the
State's Attorney:
(1) Reports or Statements of Experts
As to each defense witness the defense intends to call to testify as an
expert witness:
(A) the expert's name and address, the subject matter on which the expert
is expected to testify, the substance of the findings and the opinions to which
the expert is expected to testify, and a summary of the grounds for each
opinion;
(B) the opportunity to inspect and copy all written reports or statements
made in connection with the action by the expert, including the results of any
physical or mental examination, scientific test, experiment, or comparison; and
(C) the substance of any oral report and conclusion by the expert; and
(2) Defense of Duress

35

RULE 4-262
Notice of an intention to rely on a defense of duress pursuant to Code,
Criminal Law Article, § 11-306(c).
(3) Documents, Computer-Generated Evidence, and Other Things
The opportunity to inspect, copy, and photograph any documents,
computer-generated evidence as defined in Rule 2-504.3 (a), recordings,
photographs, or other tangible things that the defense intends to use at a
hearing or at trial.
(f) Person of the Defendant
(1) On Request
On written request of the State's Attorney that includes reasonable notice
of the time and place, the defendant shall appear for the purpose of:
(A) providing fingerprints, photographs, handwriting exemplars, or voice
exemplars;
(B) appearing, moving, or speaking for identification in a lineup; or
(C) trying on clothing or other articles.
(2) On Motion
On motion filed by the State's Attorney, with reasonable notice to the
defense, the court, for good cause shown, shall order the defendant to appear
and (A) permit the taking of buccal samples, samples of other materials of the
body, or specimens of blood, urine, saliva, breath, hair, nails, or material under
the nails or (B) submit to a reasonable physical or mental examination.
(g) Matters Not Discoverable
(1) By Any Party

36

RULE 4-262
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Rule, neither the State's
Attorney nor the defense is required to disclose (A) the mental impressions,
trial strategy, personal beliefs, or other privileged attorney work product or (B)
any other material or information if the court finds that its disclosure is not
constitutionally required and would entail a substantial risk of harm to any
person that outweighs the interest in disclosure.
(2) By the Defense
The State's Attorney is not required to disclose the identity of a
confidential informant unless the State's Attorney intends to call the informant
as a State's witness or unless the failure to disclose the informant's identity
would infringe a constitutional right of the defendant.
(h) Continuing Duty to Disclose
Each party is under a continuing obligation to produce discoverable
material and information to the other side. A party who has responded to a
request or order for discovery and who obtains further material information
shall supplement the response promptly.
(i) Procedure
To the extent practicable, the discovery and inspection required or
permitted by this Rule shall be completed before the hearing or trial date,
except that asserting a defense pursuant to subsection (e)(2) of this Rule shall
be made at least 10 days before the trial. If a request was made before the date
of the hearing or trial and the request was refused or denied, or pretrial
compliance was impracticable If compliance was refused, denied, or

37

RULE 4-262
impracticable, the court may grant a delay or continuance in the hearing or
trial to permit the inspection or discovery.
(j) Requests, Motions, and Responses to be filed with the Court
Requests for discovery, motions for discovery, and any responses to the
requests or motions shall be filed with the court.
(k) Discovery Material not to be Filed with the Court
Except as otherwise provided in these Rules or by order of court, discovery
material shall not be filed with the court. This section does not preclude the
use of discovery material at trial or as an exhibit to support or oppose a
motion.
(l) Retention; Inspection of Original
The party generating discovery material shall retain the original until the
expiration of any sentence imposed on the defendant and, on request, shall
make the original available for inspection and copying by the other party.
(m) Protective Orders
On motion of a party, a person from whom discovery is sought, or a person
named or depicted in an item sought to be discovered, the court, for good cause
shown, may order that specified disclosures be denied or restricted in any
manner that justice requires.
(n) Failure to Comply With Discovery Obligation
If at any time during the proceedings the court finds that a party has failed
to comply with this Rule or an order issued pursuant to this Rule, the court
may order that party to permit the discovery of the matters not previously

38

RULE 4-262
disclosed, strike the testimony to which the undisclosed matter relates, grant a
reasonable continuance, prohibit the party from introducing in evidence the
matter not disclosed, grant a mistrial, or enter any other order appropriate
under the circumstances. The failure of a party to comply with a discovery
obligation in this Rule does not automatically disqualify a witness from
testifying. If a motion is filed to disqualify the witness's testimony,
disqualification is within the discretion of the court.
Source: This Rule is new.

REPORTER’S NOTE
In March 2023, the Judicial Council approved for dissemination the
Report and Recommendations of the Committee on Equal Justice Rules Review
Subcommittee (hereinafter “the EJC Report”). The Rules Review Subcommittee
was tasked with identifying instances in the Rules which “reflect, perpetuate,
or fail to correct systemic biases.” The EJC Report includes suggestions to
improve the process of criminal discovery, impacting Rules 4-262 and 4-263.
Rule 4-262 concerns discovery for criminal cases in the District Court.
The EJC Report discussed a proposed amendment that would institute a fixed
deadline for providing discovery before trial in the District Court and would
compel sanctions if the deadline was not met. The EJC Report acknowledged
that the turnaround time from forensic laboratories must be considered when
modifying discovery timeframes. In addition, sanctions are not intended as
punishment, but primarily aim to ensure a fair trial. Although the imposition
of sanctions is within the discretion of the court, there are well-established
principles that a court should apply before determining a proper sanction.
The concept of a discovery deadline in the District Court has been
discussed several times by the Rules Committee in the last two decades. For
example, in its 163rd Report, the Rules Committee proposed amendments to
section (i) of Rule 4-262 governing discovery procedure in the District Court.
The proposed amendment added the phrase “to the extent practicable” before
language requiring discovery and inspection to be completed before the hearing
or trial. Similar new language in that section permitted a delay or continuance
if “pretrial compliance was impracticable.” The Reporter’s note to Rule 4-262
39

RULE 4-262
explained, “The Rules Committee believes that specific deadlines for requesting
and providing discovery would not be compatible with District Court practice,
and therefore declines to recommend the addition of discovery deadlines to
Rule 4-262.” The proposed amendments to section (i) were adopted by Rules
Order filed on March 9, 2010.
The Rules Committee has determined that a discovery deadline is not
practicable at this time and declined the EJC Report’s suggestion to add a
deadline to Rule 4-262. However, several other amendments are proposed to
Rule 4-262, primarily addressing additional concerns raised by the EJC
Report.
A new Committee note after subsection (c)(2) acknowledges that some
prosecutors comply with their discovery obligations by using “open file”
discovery. The Committee note highlights that additional materials may still be
required as outlined in the Rule. A parallel Committee note is proposed in Rule
4-263.
Rule 4-262 sets forth mandatory disclosures to the defendant in the
District Court. Certain additional materials must be provided if a written
request is made by the defendant. The EJC Report noted that requiring a
written request may present an obstacle for unrepresented defendants and
recommended that the Rules Committee consider expanding the list of
mandatory disclosures provided without request.
In current Rule 4-262, subsection (d)(1) addresses discovery materials
that must be provided without request and subsection (d)(2) lists materials that
must be provided after a written request. Proposed amendments to section (d)
in effect combine the two sections, making all of the discovery materials listed
in section (d) required without the necessity of a request.
Proposed new subsection (d)(5)(C) implements Chapters 808/809, 2024
Laws of Maryland (SB 182/HB338). The new legislation adds a subtitle to the
Criminal Procedure Article governing the use of facial recognition technology.
Code, Criminal Procedure Article, § 2-504 requires that the State disclose in
discovery certain information if facial recognition technology was used in an
investigation. New subsection (d)(5)(C) in Rule 4-262 explicitly incorporates
this mandatory disclosure.
Stylistic changes are made as needed in section (d) to conform the
subsections to the structural change.
Clarifying language is added to section (i), noting that discovery and
inspection shall, if practicable, be completed before the date of the hearing or
trial. This change aims to limit the cases where discovery is completed on the
same day as a scheduled proceeding, often prompting a postponement request.
40

RULE 4-262
The second sentence of the section is amended to reflect that discovery
pursuant to section (d) no longer requires a request.
Section (n) concerns sanctions if a party fails to comply with discovery
obligations. Despite comments received from some justice partners, the EJC
Report discouraged the use of mandatory sanctions for discovery violations in
the circuit court, but recommended that the Rules Committee consider
whether a postponement should be the presumptive remedy for a failure to
timely meet discovery obligations in the District Court.
In regard to sanctions, the Rules Committee determined that the current
Rule allows the court to fashion an appropriate response to a discovery
violation. The Committee declined to limit the court’s discretion by creating
presumptive remedies for discovery violations.
A proposed amendment to section (n) instead adds the same language that
appears in the parallel section of Rule 4-263, enumerating some possible
sanctions.

41

RULE 4-263
MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE
TITLE 4 – CRIMINAL CAUSES
CHAPTER 200 – PRETRIAL PROCEDURES
AMEND Rule 4-263 by adding a Committee note after subsection (c)(2),
by deleting the cross reference after subsection (d)(6), by adding new
subsection (d)(7)(C) pertaining to facial recognition technology, by adding
subsection (d)(11) addressing disclosures concerning in-custody witness
testimony, by adding a cross reference after new subsection (d)(11), by deleting
a Committee note at the end of section (n), and by making stylistic changes, as
follows:
Rule 4-263. DISCOVERY IN CIRCUIT COURT
...
(c) Obligations of the Parties
(1) Due Diligence
The State's Attorney and defense shall exercise due diligence to identify all
of the material and information that must be disclosed under this Rule.
(2) Scope of Obligations
The obligations of the State's Attorney and the defense extend to material
and information that must be disclosed under this Rule and that are in the
possession or control of the attorney, members of the attorney's staff, or any
other person who either reports regularly to the attorney's office or has
reported to the attorney's office in regard to the particular case.
42

RULE 4-263
Committee note: In many jurisdictions, the State complies with discovery
requirements imposed under Rules 4-262 and 4-263 through “open file”
discovery. While, in appropriate cases, “open file” discovery may satisfy the
State’s discovery obligation, the full scope of discovery may require provision of
additional discovery material beyond that contained in the “open file,” as
expressly outlined in Rules 4-262 (c) and 4-263 (c).
Cross reference: For the obligations of the State's Attorney, see State v.
Williams, 392 Md. 194 (2006).
(d) Disclosure by the State's Attorney
Without the necessity of a request, the State's Attorney shall provide to the
defense:
(1) Statements
All written and all oral statements of the defendant and of any codefendant that relate to the offense charged and all material and information,
including documents and recordings, that relate to the acquisition of such
statements;
(2) Criminal Record
Prior criminal convictions, pending charges, and probationary status of
the defendant and of any co-defendant;
(3) State's Witnesses
As to each State's witness the State's Attorney intends to call to prove the
State's case in chief or to rebut alibi testimony: (A) the name of the witness; (B)
except as provided under Code, Criminal Procedure Article, § 11-205 or Rule
16-912 (b), the address and, if known to the State's Attorney, the telephone
number of the witness; and (C) all written statements of the witness that relate
to the offense charged;

43

RULE 4-263
(4) Prior Conduct
All evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts committed by the defendant
that the State's Attorney intends to offer at a hearing or at trial pursuant to
Rule 5-404 (b);
(5) Exculpatory Information
All material or information in any form, whether or not admissible, that
tends to exculpate the defendant or negate or mitigate the defendant's guilt or
punishment as to the offense charged;
(6) Impeachment Information
All material or information in any form, whether or not admissible, that
tends to impeach a State's witness, including:
(A) evidence of prior conduct to show the character of the witness for
untruthfulness pursuant to Rule 5-608 (b);
(B) a relationship between the State's Attorney and the witness, including
the nature and circumstances of any agreement, understanding, or
representation that may constitute an inducement for the cooperation or
testimony of the witness;
Cross reference: For the requirement to disclose a “benefit” to an “in-custody
witness,” see Code, Courts Article, § 10-924.
(C) prior criminal convictions, pending charges, or probationary status that
may be used to impeach the witness, but the State's Attorney is not required to
investigate the criminal record of the witness unless the State's Attorney knows
or has reason to believe that the witness has a criminal record;

44

RULE 4-263
(D) an oral statement of the witness, not otherwise memorialized, that is
materially inconsistent with another statement made by the witness or with a
statement made by another witness;
(E) a medical or psychiatric condition or addiction of the witness that may
impair the witness's ability to testify truthfully or accurately, but the State's
Attorney is not required to inquire into a witness's medical, psychiatric, or
addiction history or status unless the State's Attorney has information that
reasonably would lead to a belief that an inquiry would result in discovering a
condition that may impair the witness's ability to testify truthfully or
accurately;
(F) the fact that the witness has taken but did not pass a polygraph
examination; and
(G) the failure of the witness to identify the defendant or a co-defendant;
Cross reference: See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); Kyles v. Whitley,
514 U.S. 419 (1995); Giglio v. U.S., 405 U.S. 150 (1972); U.S. v. Agurs, 427 U.S.
97 (1976); Thomas v. State, 372 Md. 342 (2002); Goldsmith v. State, 337 Md.
112 (1995); and Lyba v. State, 321 Md. 564 (1991).
(7) Searches, Seizures, Surveillance, and Pretrial Identification
All relevant material or information regarding:
(A) specific searches and seizures, eavesdropping, and electronic
surveillance including wiretaps; and
(B) pretrial identification of the defendant by a State's witness including, if
the pretrial identification involved participation by personnel from a law
enforcement agency, (i) a copy of or an electronic link to the written policies
relating to eyewitness identification required by Code, Public Safety Article,
45

RULE 4-263
§§ 3-506 and 3-506.1, and (ii) documents or other evidence indicating
compliance or non-compliance with the requirements of Code, Public Safety
Article, §§ 3-506 and 3-506.1; and
(C) the use of facial recognition technology, in accordance with Code,
Criminal Procedure Article, § 2-504;
Committee note: In addition to disclosure of a pretrial identification of a
defendant by a State's witness, in some cases, disclosure of a pretrial
identification of a co-defendant by a State's witness also may be required. See
Green v. State, 456 Md. 97 (2017).
(8) Reports or Statements of Experts
As to each expert consulted by the State's Attorney in connection with the
action:
(A) the expert's name and address, the subject matter of the consultation,
the substance of the expert's findings and opinions, and a summary of the
grounds for each opinion;
(B) the opportunity to inspect and copy all written reports or statements
made in connection with the action by the expert, including the results of any
physical or mental examination, scientific test, experiment, or comparison; and
(C) the substance of any oral report and conclusion by the expert;
(9) Evidence for Use at Trial
The opportunity to inspect, copy, and photograph all documents,
computer-generated evidence as defined in Rule 2-504.3 (a), recordings,
photographs, or other tangible things that the State's Attorney intends to use
at a hearing or at trial; and
(10) Property of the Defendant
46

RULE 4-263
The opportunity to inspect, copy, and photograph all items obtained from
or belonging to the defendant, whether or not the State's Attorney intends to
use the item at a hearing or at trial.; and
(11) In-custody Witness Testimony
If the State’s Attorney intends to introduce testimony of an in-custody
witness:
(A) any benefits an in-custody witness has received, or expects to receive, in
exchange for providing testimony;
(B) the substance, time, and place of any statement (i) allegedly made by a
suspect or defendant to the in-custody witness or (ii) made by an in-custody
witness to law enforcement implicating the suspect or defendant; and
(C) other cases in which the in-custody witness testified, provided that the
testimony can be ascertained through reasonable inquiry, and whether the incustody witness received a benefit in exchange for providing testimony in those
other cases.
Cross reference: See Rule 4-268 concerning pre-trial hearings prior to the
admission of in-custody witness testimony.
(e) Disclosure by Defense
Without the necessity of a request, the defense shall provide to the State's
Attorney:
(1) Defense Witness
The name and, except when the witness declines permission, the address
of each defense witness other than the defendant, together with all written
statements of each such witness that relate to the subject matter of the
47

RULE 4-263
testimony of that witness. Disclosure of the identity and statements of a
person who will be called for the sole purpose of impeaching a State's witness
is not required until after the State's witness has testified at trial.
(2) Reports or Statements of Experts
As to each defense witness the defense intends to call to testify as an
expert witness:
(A) the expert's name and address, the subject matter on which the expert
is expected to testify, the substance of the findings and the opinions to which
the expert is expected to testify, and a summary of the grounds for each
opinion;
(B) the opportunity to inspect and copy all written reports or statements
made in connection with the action by the expert, including the results of any
physical or mental examination, scientific test, experiment, or comparison; and
(C) the substance of any oral report and conclusion by the expert;
(3) Character Witnesses
As to each defense witness the defense intends to call to testify as to the
defendant's veracity or other relevant character trait, the name and, except
when the witness declines permission, the address of that witness;
(4) Alibi Witnesses
If the State's Attorney has designated the time, place, and date of the
alleged offense, the name and, except when the witness declines permission,
the address of each person other than the defendant whom the defense intends

48

RULE 4-263
to call as a witness to show that the defendant was not present at the time,
place, or date designated by the State's Attorney;
(5) Insanity Defense
Notice of any intention to rely on a defense of not criminally responsible
by reason of insanity, and the name and, except when the witness declines
permission, the address of each defense witness other than the defendant in
support of that defense; and
Committee note: The address of an expert witness must be provided. See
subsection (e)(2)(A) of this Rule.
(6) Defense of Duress
Notice of an intention to rely on a defense of duress pursuant to Code,
Criminal Law Article, § 11-306(c).
(7) Documents, Computer-Generated Evidence, and Other Things
The opportunity to inspect, copy, and photograph any documents,
computer-generated evidence as defined in Rule 2-504.3 (a), recordings,
photographs, or other tangible things that the defense intends to use at a
hearing or at trial.
(f) Person of the Defendant
(1) On Request
On request of the State's Attorney that includes reasonable notice of the
time and place, the defendant shall appear for the purpose of:
(A) providing fingerprints, photographs, handwriting exemplars, or voice
exemplars;
(B) appearing, moving, or speaking for identification in a lineup; or
49

RULE 4-263
(C) trying on clothing or other articles.
(2) On Motion
On motion filed by the State's Attorney, with reasonable notice to the
defense, the court, for good cause shown, shall order the defendant to appear
and (A) permit the taking of buccal samples, samples of other materials of the
body, or specimens of blood, urine, saliva, breath, hair, nails, or material under
the nails or (B) submit to a reasonable physical or mental examination.
(g) Matters Not Discoverable
(1) By Any Party
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Rule, neither the State's
Attorney nor the defense is required to disclose (A) the mental impressions,
trial strategy, personal beliefs, or other privileged attorney work product or (B)
any other material or information if the court finds that its disclosure is not
constitutionally required and would entail a substantial risk of harm to any
person that outweighs the interest in disclosure.
(2) By the Defense
The State's Attorney is not required to disclose the identity of a
confidential informant unless the State's Attorney intends to call the informant
as a State's witness or unless the failure to disclose the informant's identity
would infringe a constitutional right of the defendant.
(h) Time for Discovery
Unless the court orders otherwise:

50

RULE 4-263
(1) the State's Attorney shall make disclosure pursuant to section (d) of this
Rule within 30 days after the earlier of the appearance of counsel or the first
appearance of the defendant before the court pursuant to Rule 4-213 (c), and
(2) the defense shall make disclosure pursuant to section (e) of this Rule no
later than 30 days before the first scheduled trial date, except that asserting a
defense pursuant to subsection (e)(6) of this Rule shall be made at least 10
days before the first scheduled trial date.
(i) Motion to Compel Discovery
(1) Time
A motion to compel discovery based on the failure to provide discovery
within the time required by section (h) of this Rule shall be filed within ten days
after the date the discovery was due. A motion to compel based on inadequate
discovery shall be filed within ten days after the date the discovery was
received.
(2) Content
A motion shall specifically describe the information or material that has
not been provided.
(3) Response
A response may be filed within five days after service of the motion.
(4) Certificate
The court need not consider any motion to compel discovery unless the
moving party has filed a certificate describing good faith attempts to discuss
with the opposing party the resolution of the dispute and certifying that they

51

RULE 4-263
are unable to reach agreement on the disputed issues. The certificate shall
include the date, time, and circumstances of each discussion or attempted
discussion.
(j) Continuing Duty to Disclose
Each party is under a continuing obligation to produce discoverable
material and information to the other side. A party who has responded to a
request or order for discovery and who obtains further material information
shall supplement the response promptly.
(k) Manner of Providing Discovery
(1) By Agreement
Discovery may be accomplished in any manner mutually agreeable to the
parties. The parties shall file with the court a statement of their agreement.
(2) If No Agreement
In the absence of an agreement, the party generating the discovery
material shall (A) serve on the other party copies of all written discovery
material, together with a list of discovery materials in other forms and a
statement of the time and place when these materials may be inspected,
copied, and photographed, and (B) promptly file with the court a notice that (i)
reasonably identifies the information provided and (ii) states the date and
manner of service. On request, the party generating the discovery material
shall make the original available for inspection and copying by the other party.
(3) Requests, Motions, and Responses to Be Filed With the Court

52

RULE 4-263
Requests for discovery, motions for discovery, motions to compel
discovery, and any responses to the requests or motions shall be filed with the
court.
(4) Discovery Material Not to Be Filed With the Court
Except as otherwise provided in these Rules or by order of court,
discovery material shall not be filed with the court. This section does not
preclude the use of discovery material at trial or as an exhibit to support or
oppose a motion.
(l) Retention
The party generating discovery material shall retain the original until the
earlier of the expiration of (i) any sentence imposed on the defendant or (ii) the
retention period that the material would have been retained under the
applicable records retention and disposal schedule had the material been filed
with the court.
(m) Protective Orders
(1) Generally
On motion of a party, a person from whom discovery is sought, or a
person named or depicted in an item sought to be discovered, the court, for
good cause shown, may order that specified disclosures be denied or restricted
in any manner that justice requires.
(2) In Camera Proceedings
On request of party, or a person from whom discovery is sought, or a
person named or depicted in an item sought to be discovered, the court may

53

RULE 4-263
permit any showing of cause for denial or restriction of disclosures to be made
in camera. A record shall be made of both in court and in camera proceedings.
Upon the entry of an order granting relief in an in camera proceeding, all
confidential portions of the in camera portion of the proceeding shall be sealed,
preserved in the records of the court, and made available to the appellate court
in the event of an appeal.
(n) Sanctions
If at any time during the proceedings the court finds that a party has failed
to comply with this Rule or an order issued pursuant to this Rule, the court
may order that party to permit the discovery of the matters not previously
disclosed, strike the testimony to which the undisclosed matter relates, grant a
reasonable continuance, prohibit the party from introducing in evidence the
matter not disclosed, grant a mistrial, or enter any other order appropriate
under the circumstances. The failure of a party to comply with a discovery
obligation in this Rule does not automatically disqualify a witness from
testifying. If a motion is filed to disqualify the witness's testimony,
disqualification is within the discretion of the court.
Committee note: When testimony of an in-custody witness is offered, the
Court, at the request of a defendant, shall conduct a hearing to ensure that the
State's Attorney has disclosed all material and information related to the incustody witness as required by law. See Code, Courts Article, § 10-924.
Source: This Rule is new and is derived in part from former Rule 741 and the
1998 version of former Rule 4-263.

54

RULE 4-263
REPORTER’S NOTE
In Rule 4-263, a proposed Committee note after subsection (c)(2)
acknowledges that some prosecutors comply with their discovery obligations by
using “open file” discovery. The Committee note highlights that additional
materials may still be required as outlined in the Rule. A parallel Committee
note is proposed in Rule 4-262.
Proposed new subsection (d)(7)(C) implements Chapters 808/809, 2024
Laws of Maryland (SB 182/HB338). The new legislation adds a subtitle to the
Criminal Procedure Article governing the use of facial recognition technology.
Code, Criminal Procedure Article, § 2-504 requires that the State disclose in
discovery certain information if facial recognition technology was used in an
investigation. New subsection (d)(7)(C) in Rule 4-263 explicitly incorporates
this mandatory disclosure.
Additional amendments to Rule 4-263 are proposed based on the Report
and Recommendations of the Committee on Equal Justice Rules Review
Subcommittee (hereinafter “the EJC Report”). In March 2023, the Judicial
Council approved the EJC Report for dissemination. For additional
information, see the Reporter’s note to Rule 4-262.
The EJC Report discussed a proposal to add a new subsection to Rule 4263 about in-custody witness testimony and a new Rule addressing a
preliminary hearing. Overall, the EJC Report recommended that Rule 4-263 be
amended to incorporate the statutory requirements of Code, Courts Article,
§ 10-924, that the Committee consider adding a section regulating hearings
under the Code section, and that the Committee consider whether pretrial
sworn testimony from an in-custody witness may be demanded by a defendant.
Amendments to Rule 4-263 are proposed in response to the EJC Report.
New subsection (d)(11) sets forth the required discovery material if the State’s
Attorney intends to introduce the testimony of an in-custody witness. The
language of the section is taken from the statutory provisions. A cross
reference after the new subsection points to new Rule 4-268.
The current cross reference after subsection (d)(6)(B) and the Committee
note after section (n) are proposed to be deleted. Based on the addition of new
subsection (d)(11), the cross reference and Committee note are unnecessary.
Stylistic changes are made to account for the addition of a new
subsection.

55

RULE 4-268
MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE
TITLE 4 – CRIMINAL CAUSES
CHAPTER 200 – PRETRIAL PROCEDURES
ADD new Rule 4-268, as follows:
Rule 4-268. PRE-TRIAL HEARING PRIOR TO ADMISSION OF IN-CUSTODY
WITNESS TESTIMONY
At the request of the defendant, the court shall conduct a hearing prior to
admitting the testimony of an in-custody witness to determine whether the
State's Attorney has disclosed all material and information related to the incustody witness as required by law.
Cross reference: See Rule 4-263 and Code, Courts Article, § 10-924.
Source: This Rule is new.

REPORTER’S NOTE
The Report and Recommendations of the Committee on Equal Justice
Rules Review Subcommittee (hereinafter “the EJC Report”) discussed a
proposal to add a new subsection to Rule 4-263 about in-custody witness
testimony and a new Rule addressing a related preliminary hearing. For
additional information, see the Reporter’s note to Rule 4-263.
Proposed new Rule 4-268 addresses hearings related to § 10-924 and is
prepared in tandem with the proposed amendments to Rule 4-263. Section (e)
of § 10-924 states, “Prior to admitting testimony of an in-custody witness, the
court shall conduct a hearing, at the request of the defendant, to ensure that
the State's Attorney has disclosed all material and information related to the
in-custody witness as required under subsection (d) of this section and
Maryland Rule 4-263.”

56

RULE 4-213.1
MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE
TITLE 4 – CRIMINAL CAUSES
CHAPTER 200 – PRETRIAL PROCEDURES
AMEND Rule 4-213.1 by correcting terminology in subsection (g)(1) and
by adding clarifying language to subsections (g)(1) and (g)(2), as follows:
Rule 4-213.1. APPOINTMENT, APPEARANCE, OR WAIVER OF ATTORNEY AT
INITIAL APPEARANCE
...
(g) Provisional and Limited Appearance
(1) Provisional Representation by Public Defender
Unless a District Court commissioner has made a final determination of
indigence and the Public Defender has entered a general appearance pursuant
to Rule 4-214, any appearance entered by the Public Defender at an initial
appearance shall be provisional, shall terminate automatically upon the
conclusion of that stage of the criminal action, and shall not commence the
time for setting a trial date pursuant to Rule 4-271. For purposes of this
section, eligibility for provisional representation shall be determined by a
District Court commission commissioner prior to or at the time of the
proceeding.
(2) Limited Appearance
Unless a general appearance has been entered pursuant to Rule 4-214, an
appearance by a court-appointed or privately retained attorney shall be limited
57

RULE 4-213.1
to the initial appearance before the judicial officer, and shall terminate
automatically upon the conclusion of that stage of the criminal action, and
shall not commence the time for setting a trial date pursuant to Rule 4-271.
(3) Inconsistency with Rule 4-214
Section (g) of this Rule prevails over any inconsistent provision in Rule 4214.
Committee note: The entry of a provisional or limited appearance in
accordance with this Rule does not constitute the entry of an appearance for
the purpose of bringing, prosecuting, or defending an action and does not
require the payment of a fee under Code, Courts Article, § 7-204.
Source: This Rule is new but is derived, in part, from amendments proposed to
Rule 4-216 in the 181st Report of the Standing Committee on Rules of Practice
and Procedure.

REPORTER’S NOTE
Proposed amendments to Rules 4-213.1 and 4-271 primarily clarify the
impact of limited appearances in criminal cases on the “Hicks Rule.” A trial
court judge brought the question to the Rules Committee of whether an
attorney entering a limited appearance in a criminal action pursuant to Rule 4213.1 starts the Hicks timeline.
Code, Criminal Procedure Article, § 6-103 and Rule 4-271 both provide
that a trial date must be set within 30 days after the earlier of the appearance
of counsel or the first appearance of the defendant before the circuit court.
However, neither the Rule, the Code, nor case law directly address whether the
“appearance of counsel” includes the entry of a limited appearance as
permitted by Rule 4-213.1 for an initial appearance.
A limited appearance pursuant to Rule 4-213.1 terminates automatically
upon conclusion of the relevant stage of the criminal action. The Committee
note following section (g) explains, at least for purposes of collecting fees, “The
entry of a provisional or limited appearance in accordance with this Rule does
not constitute the entry of an appearance for the purpose of bringing,
prosecuting, or defending an action…” Accordingly, the limited appearance

58

RULE 4-213.1
contemplated by Rule 4-213 is distinguished from an “appearance of counsel”
otherwise referenced in other Rules.
Considering that a limited appearance pursuant to Rule 4-213.1 is only
for the purposes of a proceeding and not for the action, amendments to
subsections (g)(1) and (g)(2) are proposed to clarify that the entry of a limited
appearance pursuant to the Rules does not commence the time for setting a
trial date.
An additional amendment is proposed in subsection (g)(1) to clarify that
provisional representation by the Office of the Public Defender automatically
terminates, parallel to the automatic termination contemplated in subsection
(g)(2). A review of the Rules history suggests that a provision about automatic
termination was inadvertently removed from an earlier version of subsection
(g)(1).
The provisions in current Rule 4-213.1 (g) were initially proposed as new
subsection (e)(2) of Rule 4-216 in the 181st Report to implement the holding of
DeWolfe v. Richmond. The language proposed in the 181st Report and adopted
by Rules Order provided: “Provisional representation by the Public Defender or
representation by a court-appointed attorney shall be limited to the initial
appearance before the judicial officer and shall terminate automatically upon
the conclusion of that stage of the criminal action, unless representation by the
Public Defender is extended or renewed pursuant to Rule 4-216.1.” (emphasis
added).
In the 183rd Report, the provisions in Rule 4-216 (e)(2) were moved to
new Rule 4-213.1 (g), where they are still found. The 183rd Report explained
that there was no intent to change the content of this section when moving it to
the new Rule: “Sections (e), (f), and (g), dealing, respectively, with waiver of the
right to an attorney, participation of attorneys by electronic means or
telecommunication, and provisional or limited appearances, were included in
the 181st Report and were approved in that context by the Court.” Similarly,
the Reporter’s note for Rule 4-213.1 in the 183rd Report confirms that no
major changes were intended, stating: “Section (g), pertaining to provisional
and limited appearances, carries forward the provisions of Rule 4-216 (e)(2).”
Despite noting that no major changes were intended, the language providing
that a provisional or limited appearance would automatically terminate
appeared only in the subsection concerning court-appointed or privately
retained attorneys.
Code provisions suggest that the language regarding automatic
termination is applicable to provisional representation by the Office of the
Public Defender. Code, Criminal Procedure Article, § 16-210 (d)(3) states:

59

RULE 4-213.1
(i) For the purpose of an initial appearance proceeding or bail review, a
District Court commissioner shall make a preliminary determination as
to whether an individual qualifies as indigent.
…
(iii) Representation at the initial appearance shall terminate at the
conclusion of the proceeding, unless the commissioner has made a final
determination that the individual qualifies as indigent and the Office has
entered a general appearance.
In light of the Rules history and § 16-210, it appears that the language
regarding automatic termination was inadvertently removed from subsection
(g)(1) when the provisions were moved to new Rule 4-213.1 in the 183rd Report.
Accordingly, proposed amendments to Rule 4-213.1 (g)(1) add language
clarifying that provisional representation by the Office of the Public Defender
terminates unless a final determination is made by the District Court
commissioner or a general appearance is entered pursuant to Rule 4-214.
In addition, in subsection (g)(1), the term “District Court commission” is
corrected to read “District Court commissioner.”

60

RULE 4-271
MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE
TITLE 4 – CRIMINAL CAUSES
CHAPTER 200 – PRETRIAL PROCEDURES
AMEND Rule 4-271 by adding clarifying language to section (a), as
follows:
Rule 4-271. TRIAL DATE
(a) Trial Date in Circuit Court
(1) The date for trial in the circuit court shall be set within 30 days after the
earlier of the appearance of counsel pursuant to Rule 4-214 or the first
appearance of the defendant before the circuit court pursuant to Rule 4-213,
and shall be not later than 180 days after the earlier of those events. When a
case has been transferred from the District Court because of a demand for jury
trial, and an appearance of counsel entered in the District Court was
automatically entered in the circuit court pursuant to Rule 4-214 (a), the date
of the appearance of counsel for purposes of this Rule is the date the case was
docketed in the circuit court. On motion of a party, or on the court's initiative,
and for good cause shown, the county administrative judge or that judge's
designee may grant a change of a circuit court trial date. If a circuit court trial
date is changed, any subsequent changes of the trial date may be made only by
the county administrative judge or that judge's designee for good cause shown.
Cross reference: See Code, Criminal Procedure Article, § 6-103; see also
Jackson v. State, 485 Md. 1 (2023).

61

RULE 4-271
(2) Upon a finding by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court that the
number of demands for jury trial filed in the District Court for a county is
having a critical impact on the efficient operation of the circuit court for that
county, the Chief Justice, by Administrative Order, may exempt from this
section cases transferred to that circuit court from the District Court because
of a demand for jury trial.
(b) Change of Trial Date in District Court
The date for trial in the District Court may be changed on motion of a
party, or on the court's initiative, and for good cause shown.
Committee note: Subsection (a)(1) of this Rule is intended to incorporate and
continue the provisions of Rule 746 from which it is derived. Stylistic changes
have been made.
Source: This Rule is derived as follows:
Section (a) is in part derived from former Rule 746 a and b, and is in part new.
Section (b) is derived from former M.D.R. 746.

REPORTER’S NOTE
Proposed amendments to Rules 4-213.1 and 4-271 clarify the impact of
limited appearances in criminal cases on the “Hicks Rule.” For further
discussion, see the Reporter’s note to Rule 4-213.1.
Rule 4-271 (a) provides that a trial date must be set within 30 days after
the earlier of the appearance of counsel or the first appearance of the
defendant before the circuit court pursuant to Rule 4-213. A proposed
amendment to Rule 4-271 (a)(1) notes that the subsection refers to an
appearance of counsel entered pursuant to Rule 4-214, addressing the entry of
appearance of defense counsel. The added language makes clear that the
beginning of the 30-day period is not triggered by a provisional or limited
appearance entered pursuant to Rule 4-213.1.

62

RULE 4-252
MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE
TITLE 4 – CRIMINAL CAUSES
CHAPTER 200 – PRETRIAL PROCEDURES
AMEND Rule 4-252 by adding a cross reference following subsection
(a)(3), as follows:
Rule 4-252. MOTIONS IN CIRCUIT COURT
(a) Mandatory Motions
In the circuit court, the following matters shall be raised by motion in
conformity with this Rule and if not so raised are waived unless the court, for
good cause shown, orders otherwise:
(1) A defect in the institution of the prosecution;
(2) A defect in the charging document other than its failure to show
jurisdiction in the court or its failure to charge an offense;
(3) An unlawful search, seizure, interception of wire or oral communication,
or pretrial identification;
Cross reference: See Code, Criminal Procedure Article, Title 2, Subtitle 5
regarding admissibility of results generated by facial recognition technology.
(4) An unlawfully obtained admission, statement, or confession; and
Cross reference: See Code, Courts Article, § 3-8A-14.2 regarding admissibility
of a statement made by a child, including a child charged as an adult, during a
custodial interrogation.
(5) A request for joint or separate trial of defendants or offenses.
...

63

RULE 4-252
REPORTER’S NOTE
Chapters 808/809, 2024 Laws of Maryland (SB 182/HB338), add a new
subtitle to the Criminal Procedure Article governing the use of facial recognition
technology. Code, Criminal Procedure Article, § 2-502 prohibits use of facial
recognition technology as evidence in criminal and delinquency proceedings,
with certain exceptions.
In Rule 4-252, a cross reference to the new statute is proposed to be
added following subsection (a)(3), which requires “an unlawful... pretrial
identification” to be raised by motion filed within the time stated in section (b)
of the Rule. The new cross reference is modeled after a similar provision
recently added following subsection (a)(4) pertaining to a law governing
admissibility of statements by a juvenile in a custodial interrogation.
A parallel reference is proposed in Rule 11-419 governing motions in
delinquency proceedings.

64

RULE 11-419
MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE
TITLE 11 – JUVENILE CAUSES
CHAPTER 400 – DELINQUENCY AND CITATION PROCEEDINGS
AMEND Rule 11-419 by adding a cross reference following subsection
(b)(3), as follows:
Rule 11-419. MOTIONS
...
(b) Mandatory Motions—Generally
In a delinquency proceeding, the following matters shall be raised by
motion in conformity with this Rule and if not so raised are waived unless the
court, for good cause shown, orders otherwise:
(1) A defect in the institution of the prosecution;
(2) A defect in the charging document other than its failure to show
jurisdiction in the court or its failure to charge an offense;
(3) An unlawful search, seizure, interception of wire or oral communication,
or pretrial identification;
Cross reference: See Code, Criminal Procedure Article, Title 2, Subtitle 5
regarding admissibility of results generated by facial recognition technology.
(4) An unlawfully obtained admission, statement, or confession; and
Cross reference: See Code, Courts Article, § 3-8A-14.2 regarding admissibility
of a statement made by a child during a custodial interrogation.
(5) A request for a joint trial or separate trials or respondents or offenses.
...
65

RULE 11-419
REPORTER’S NOTE
Chapters 808/809, 2024 Laws of Maryland (SB 182/HB 338), add a new
subtitle to the Criminal Procedure Article governing the use of facial recognition
technology. Code, Criminal Procedure Article, § 2-502 prohibits use of facial
recognition technology as evidence in criminal and delinquency proceedings,
with certain exceptions.
In Rule 11-419, a cross reference to the new statute is proposed following
subsection (b)(3), which requires “an unlawful... pretrial identification” to be
raised by motion filed in conformity with the Rule. The new cross reference is
modeled after a similar provision recently added following subsection (b)(4)
pertaining to a law governing admissibility of statements by a juvenile in a
custodial interrogation.
A parallel reference is proposed in Rule 4-252 governing motions in
criminal proceedings.

66

RULE 4-314
MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE
TITLE 4 – CRIMINAL CAUSES
CHAPTER 300 – TRIAL AND SENTENCING
AMEND Rule 4-314 by updating terminology in subsection (b)(6), as
follows:
Rule 4-314. DEFENSE OF NOT CRIMINALLY RESPONSIBLE
...
(b) Procedure for Bifurcated Trial
...
(6) Order of Proof
(A) Evidence of mental disorder or mental retardation intellectual disability
as defined in Code, Criminal Procedure Article, § 3-109 shall not be admissible
in the guilt stage of the trial for the purpose of establishing the defense of lack
of criminal responsibility. This evidence shall be admissible for that purpose
only in the second stage following a verdict of guilty.
...

REPORTER’S NOTE
The proposed amendment conforms Rule 4-314 to Chapter 444, 2024
Laws of Maryland (HB 432). The bill made technical amendments to a series of
statutes by replacing the term “mental retardation” with “intellectual
disability.”

67

RULE 11-102
MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE
TITLE 11 - JUVENILE CAUSES
CHAPTER 100 – GENERAL PROVISIONS
AMEND Rule 11-102 by updating the terms in the cross reference
following section (a), as follows:
Rule 11-102. DEFINITIONS
The following definitions apply in this Title:
(a) Statutory Definitions
The definitions in Code, Courts Article, §§ 3-801 and 3-8A-01 are
applicable to this Title. If a definition in Code, Courts Article, Title 3, Subtitle 8
differs from the definition of the term in Code, Courts Article, Title 3, Subtitle
8A, the definition in the Subtitle under which the particular action or
proceeding was filed applies.
Cross reference: See Code, Courts Article, § 3-801 for definitions of “abuse,”
“adjudicatory hearing,” “adult,” “child,” “child in need of assistance,” “CINA,”
“commit,” “custodian,” “custody,” “developmental disability,” “disposition
hearing,” “guardian,” “guardianship,” “labor trafficking,” “local department,”
“mental disorder,” “mental injury,” “neglect,” “parent,” “party,” “qualified
residential treatment program,” “reasonable efforts,” “relative,” “sex trafficking,”
“sexual abuse,” “sexual molestation or exploitation,” “shelter care,” “shelter
care hearing,” “TPR proceeding,” “voluntary placement,” and “voluntary
placement hearing.”
See Code, Courts Article, § 3-8A-01 for definitions of “adjudicatory
hearing,” “adult,” “child,” “child in need of supervision,” “citation,” “commit,”
“community detention,” “competency hearing,” “custodian,” “delinquent act,”
“delinquent child,” “detention,” “developmental disability,” “disposition
hearing,” “incompetent to proceed,” “intake officer,” “intellectual disability,”
“mental disorder,” “mental retardation,” “mentally handicapped child,” “party,”

68

RULE 11-102
“peace order proceeding,” “peace order request,” “petition,” “qualified expert,”
“respondent,” “shelter care,” “victim,” “violation,” and “witness.”
...

REPORTER’S NOTE
Proposed amendments conform Rule 11-102 to Chapters 348/349, 2024
Laws of Maryland (SB 550/HB 508) and Chapter 444, 2024 Laws of Maryland
(HB 432).
Ch. 348/349 added a definition of “labor trafficking” to Code, Courts
Article, § 3-801. The first paragraph of the cross reference following section (a)
is updated to reflect this addition.
Ch. 444 made technical amendments to a series of statutes by replacing the
term “mental retardation” with “intellectual disability.” The second paragraph
of the cross reference following section (a) is updated to reflect this change.

69

RULE 11-422
MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE
TITLE 11 - JUVENILE CAUSES
CHAPTER 400 – DELINQUENCY AND CITATION PROCEEDINGS
AMEND Rule 11-422 by updating the terminology in the cross reference
following subsection (d)(1) and by making stylistic changes, as follows:
Rule 11-422. DISPOSITION HEARING AND ORDER
...
(d) Permitted Dispositions – Delinquency Petition
(1) Generally
In a proceeding based on a delinquency petition, the court may enter a
disposition authorized by Code, Courts Article, § 3-8A-19(d), (f), (g), (h), (i), or
(j), subject to the conditions and limitations set forth in those sections and in
Code, Courts Article, §§ 3-8A-19.6, 3-8A-22, 3-8A-24, and 3-8A-35.
Cross reference: In Code, Courts Article, § 3-8A-19, subsection (d) addresses
the court's disposition generally. Subsection (f) of that section addresses the
guardian appointed under the section. Subsection (g) of that section addresses
placement of a child in an emergency facility on an emergency basis under
Code, Health-General Article, Title 10, Subtitle 6, Part IV. Subsections (h) and
(i) of that section address commitment of a child to the custody of the State
Department of Health for inpatient care and treatment in a State mental
hospital or State mental retardation facility facility for individuals with an
intellectual disability, respectively. Subsection (j) of that section addresses the
requirement that a commitment order issued under either subsection (h) or (i)
must require the State Department of Health to file certain progress reports.
...

70

RULE 11-422
REPORTER’S NOTE
Proposed amendments to Rule 11-422 conform the Rule to Chapter 444,
2024 Laws of Maryland (HB 432) and make stylistic changes. The bill made
technical amendments to a series of statutes by replacing the term “mental
retardation” with “intellectual disability.”

71

RULE 11-423
MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE
TITLE 11 - JUVENILE CAUSES
CHAPTER 400 – DELINQUENCY AND CITATION PROCEEDINGS
AMEND Rule 11-423 by updating the terminology in the cross reference
following section (c) and by making stylistic changes, as follows:
Rule 11-423. REVISORY POWER; POST-DISPOSITION HEARINGS
...
(c) Commitment to Maryland Department of Health
If the order sought to be modified or vacated committed the respondent to
the Department of Health pursuant to Code, Courts Article, § 3-8A-19(h), (i), or
(j), the court shall proceed in accordance with those sections.
Cross reference: In Code, Courts Article, § 3-8A-19, subsection (h) addresses
the commitment of a child to the custody of the Department of Health for
inpatient care and treatment in a State mental hospital. Subsection (i) of that
statute addresses commitment of a child to the custody of the Department of
Health for inpatient care and treatment in a State mental retardation facility
facility for individuals with an intellectual disability. Subsection (j) of that
statute addresses the requirement that a commitment order issued under
either subsection (i) or (j) must require the Department of Health to file certain
progress reports.
...

REPORTER’S NOTE
Proposed amendments conform Rule 11-423 to Chapter 444, 2024 Laws
of Maryland (HB 432) and make stylistic changes. The bill made technical
amendments to a series of statutes by replacing the term “mental retardation”
with “intellectual disability.”
72

RULE 11-302
MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE
TITLE 11 - JUVENILE CAUSES
CHAPTER 300 – GUARDIANSHIP TERMINATING PARENTAL RIGHTS
AMEND Rule 11-302 by updating the terms in the cross reference
following section (b), as follows:
Rule 11-302. DEFINITIONS
The following definitions apply in this Chapter:
...
(b) Additional Definitions
(1) CINA
“CINA” means a child in need of assistance under Chapter 200 of these
Rules.
(2) Local Department
“Local department” means the local department of social services for the
county in which the court is located. In Montgomery County, “local
department” means the

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/court_rules%3Amd%3A675d7e68d0947d6b. Public record. Not legal advice.