Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

Published on: October 3, 2024

Maryland Man Arrested for Carjacking, Dog Theft

A Montgomery County man was arrested over the weekend in North Carolina after he allegedly stole an 87-year-old Veteran’s car with his dog inside. Reports indicate that the defendant forcibly took the victim’s keys from his pocket before stealing his car and dog from the parking lot of a Pennsylvania retail store. Pennsylvania authorities charged the defendant with carjacking and theft and had been searching for him for over a week before he surfaced more than 500 miles away. North Carolina authorities received a call about a suspicious Ford Focus with Pennsylvania plates and as they encountered the suspect vehicle it become clear that the car was stolen. After attempting a traffic stop the defendant sped away, allegedly reaching speeds of more than 100 mph on Interstate 95 before crashing from police executed a PIT maneuver. The PIT maneuver is also known as tactical vehicle intervention and is an effective but controversial method for police to disable a fleeing vehicle by forcing it into a spin. Luckily there were no injuries from the high-speed chase, but North Carolina officers did allege the defendant intentionally rammed a police vehicle. As a result, the defendant was charged with assault with a deadly weapon along with felony hit and run and reckless driving. He is currently incarcerated in North Carolina and will eventually be extradited to Pennsylvania and ultimately Maryland.

It turns out that the defendant has numerous criminal contacts within Maryland and was recently incarcerated at the Montgomery County Detention Center just weeks before this multi-state crime spree that left at 87-year-old Vet without his pet and sidekick. The defendant was placed on probation in Frederick County for unauthorized removal of a motor vehicle this past March. His probation judge issued a violation of probation bench warrant in July and then he was arrested in August for theft and false statement to a law enforcement officer. Despite the VOP warrant and the new pending case he was released by a Montgomery County District Court judge on an unsecured bail. Three weeks after his release he received another criminal charge for theft but was issued a citation and never arrested. The alleged carjacking in Pennsylvania occurred just 4 days after the theft citation.

The defendant may not face a Maryland judge for months or even years as it seems his situations in North Carolina and Pennsylvania are far more serious. He will most likely miss his three court dates in Maryland and be issued failure to appear bench warrants. The warrants will serve as detainers and Maryland will be notified before he is released from any sentences served out-of-state. When he was incarcerated in Montgomery County back in August the defendant certainly had a valid argument for release on the violation of probation and the theft charge. Neither of the cases were violent in nature and the bail review judge could never have predicted the defendant would make the jump from theft to carjacking and aggravated assault in a matter of weeks. Nevertheless, these are the kind of cases that judges hate and are a large reason why so many defendants are held without bail at the district court level.

Continue reading →

Published on: September 19, 2024

State Police Arrest Woman in Armed Road Rage

By Benjamin Herbst

Maryland State Police troopers recently arrested a woman for allegedly pointing a gun from her BMW SUV at another motorist in Prince George’s County. The 37-year-old woman was arrested at her home the day after the alleged road-rage incident and charged with two counts of first-degree assault, one count of second-degree assault, use of a firearm in a crime of violence and loaded handgun in vehicle. She was held without bail by a District Court Commissioner but granted release on private home detention at her bail review in front of a judge. According to the MSP press release the woman allegedly pointed a firearm at another driver on Route 5 in PG County. The other driver apparently had a child in the vehicle at the time of the incident. Law enforcement officers were able to locate the suspect’s vehicle at her residence later that day and seized two loaded handguns from the BMW. MSP also stated that the woman attempted to destroy evidence by smashing her cell phone during a police interview, though she was not charged with obstruction of justice or tampering with evidence.

The defendant is set for a preliminary hearing in October at the Upper Marlboro District Courthouse. The preliminary hearing will likely not occur, as they rarely do in Prince George’s County. The State will likely nolle pros. the case on the preliminary date and then indict the matter in the circuit court. It does not appear that the defendant has any prior convictions in Maryland, so her defense lawyer may be able to argue for the felony assault to be dropped assuming the State can prove its case. The defendant must also focus on the charge for use of a firearm in a crime of violence, which is classified as a misdemeanor but carries a harsh 5-year mandatory sentence and a 20-year maximum penalty. The State and eventually the judge will certainly be concerned about the presence of firearms on a public highway and the fact that a child was inside the victim’s car. There may not be any direct proof that the gun was loaded at the time of the alleged assault, though the State may be able to establish this based on circumstantial evidence that it was loaded at the time police executed the search and seizure.

Under Maryland law a person can be charged with felony first-degree assault for causing or attempting to cause serious physical injury, strangling another person or committing an assault with a firearm. In firearm cases like this one, the defendant does not have to discharge the gun or use it to strike the victim to be charged. The only requirement is that the defendant commit a simple assault with a firearm, which can be any act that places the victim in fear of immediate harm. If you have been charged or are being investigated for assault or use of a firearm, contact Maryland gun crimes attorney Benjamin Herbst anytime for a free consultation. Benjamin specializes in aggravated assault with a firearm, domestic assault, possession of a firearm by a disqualified person or convicted felon and use of a handgun in a crime. He is available on short notice for bail reviews in all Maryland counties and can file a motion to recall your arrest warrant or bench warrant if you have missed court. Contact Benjamin 7 days a week at 410-207-2598 and learn what defenses may be available in your Maryland gun charge.

Continue reading →

Published on: September 6, 2024

Woman Arrested for Bay Bridge DUI Accident

By Benjamin Herbst

Back in January MDTA Police Officers responded to a serious accident on the Queen Anne’s County side of the westbound span of the Bay Bridge. Upon arrival shortly before 8 a.m. police determined the crash involved 23 separate vehicles with 12 individuals requiring immediate medical attention. The westbound span was closed for about 5 hours as investigators and first responders cleared the scene and provided all necessary medical attention. After that, we did not hear much about the incident until recently when investigators and the State’s Attorney for Queen Anne’s County made the decision to charge the person allegedly responsible.

According to reports, accident investigators determined that a 48-year-old woman from Queen Anne’s County was the party responsible for the pile up. The woman was allegedly driving her 2018 Honda Civic at a high rate of speed shortly before she lost control. MDTA crash investigation officers who are part of the Collision Reconstruction Unit have specific training in crash recreation and will use all information available to conclude who was at fault. The Bay Bridge is a heavily monitored roadway with numerous cameras always recording. While charges were not filed until several months after the incident, investigators likely zeroed in on their suspect shortly after arrival on scene. The defendant was ultimately charged by way of criminal information in the Circuit Court for Queen Anne’s County located in Centreville. A criminal information is simply a document that the State’s Attorney’s Office files with the Clerk of Court to initiate a criminal case. This document is similar to an indictment but does not require a grand jury or the police to determine probable cause. In a sense, the criminal information cuts right to the chase, as the office that is prosecuting the case ultimately has final say in which charges will be pursued. While all the charges filed are misdemeanors, the State chose to file the information in the Circuit Court due to the complexity of the case, and the fact that the defendant would likely ask for a jury trial. When the State directly files a criminal information, they often ask for an arrest warrant to issue. In some cases, there is a request for a pre-set bail, while in others the defendant is ordered to be held until being brought before a Circuit Court judge.

The charging document includes 15 counts of both traffic and criminal law violations. The traffic violations are DUI, DWI, driving on suspended license, reckless and negligent driving. The defendant is accused of being impaired by alcohol in the 21.902 (a) and (b) violations and impaired by drugs in the 21.902 (c) violations. The criminal law violations include six counts of causing life threatening injury by vehicle while under the influence, which is a misdemeanor with a 3-year maximum prison sentence. While the defendant does have a prior impaired driving case, she was granted probation before judgment, so she is not considered a subsequent offender. Had she been convicted in her 2022 DWI case (also in Queen Anne’s County) the life-threatening injury charges would have carried up to 5 years in prison upon conviction.

Continue reading →

Published on: August 23, 2024

Ocean City to Allow Marijuana Dispensaries

By Benjamin Herbst

While marijuana has been sold recreationally in Maryland for over a year, the Ocean City town government had been reluctant to play along with the rest of the state. Recreational marijuana dispensaries opened for business in Maryland on July 1, 2023, but a moratorium on cannabis sales prevented dispensaries from operating anywhere in the town limits of Ocean City. This week the town government finally lifted the ban with the unanimous passage of a zoning ordinance that aligns the town with the statewide cannabis policy. Marijuana can now be sold for recreational purposes provided licensed dispensaries are located at least 100 feet from any residentially zoned area and 500 feet from any pre-existing primary or secondary school or childcare facility. Pot shops must also be more than 500 feet from pre-existing playgrounds, recreational centers, libraries, public parks and places of worship. The town also reserves the right to assure dispensaries are separated by a minimum of 1,000 feet from each other and up to .5 mile. There is no language in the ordinance that mentions whether dispensaries would be allowed on the famous boardwalk, so it seems this popular area would be open for business. Licensed dispensaries would be able to operate from 8 in the morning to 11 at night which gives retailers 3 more hours to sell their product. The previous hours of operation were limited to 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. Bars in the town are permitted to sell liquor until 2 a.m., and as a result there hasn’t been much resistance from the public for the extended hours.

Alcohol remains a more pressing issue for Ocean City law enforcement, as there were more than 30 DUI arrests in July compared to one marijuana citation during the same period. As with the rest of the state, it remains to be seen whether opening recreational dispensaries will bring any negative attention to Maryland’s only beachfront town. Up until now there have been no dramatic public safety consequences of legalizing marijuana for recreational use in Maryland, and there is no reason to think Ocean City would not be able to enjoy the benefit of increased commerce without any potential public safety risk.

The Blog will continue to follow the implementation of recreational cannabis in Ocean City and all other Maryland jurisdictions. We may post a follow up article in the near future so stay tuned. If you have a question about the cannabis laws or have been charged with a crime, contact Maryland criminal defense lawyer Benjamin Herbst anytime for a free consultation. Benjamin specializes in drug crimes such as importation of cannabis over 5 kilograms, which is still a felony under Maryland criminal law 5-614. This offense carries up to 10 years in prison, which jumps to 25 years in prison if the amount is over 45 kilograms. Benjamin also has extensive experience defending clients charged with possession with intent to distribute marijuana in Ocean City and all other Maryland jurisdictions, which is now a misdemeanor under state law. Defendants who are arrested with a firearm and a large quantity of marijuana are often charged incorrectly with possession of a firearm in a drug trafficking crime, but this charge would not apply unless the facts support an importation charge. Only felony drug offenses are classified as drug trafficking crimes under Maryland law. A person could easily face firearm drug trafficking charges if police find a decent amount of cocaine, heroin, meth or MDMA along with a gun, but not for less than 12 pounds of weed. Contact Ocean City criminal defense lawyer Benjamin Herbst anytime for a free consultation about your Maryland drug or gun case at 410-207-2598.

Continue reading →

Published on: August 14, 2024

Crab Shack Owner Charged with Crab Theft

By Benjamin Herbst

Police in Cecil County recently arrested the owner of a burned-down Elkton crab shack after he allegedly plundered other restaurants in Maryland and Delaware in a misguided attempt to get back on his feet. The defendant was arrested last week and extradited to Delaware on a warrant shortly thereafter to face theft scheme charges. He is no longer in custody in Delaware but will be due in court at some point soon. As of now there are no theft charges in Maryland, which means Delaware may end up prosecuting all the alleged thefts. Theft crimes can be prosecuted in the jurisdiction where the theft originally occurred or in a place where the defendant allegedly took the stolen goods. For example, if a defendant steals a motor vehicle in Montgomery County and is eventually pulled over in Baltimore County, he or she could face charges in either county, but not both.

The theft scheme was likely hatched after the defendant lost his crab shack to a fire back on July 8. Typically when we see a restaurant owner arrested after a fire it is due to an allegation of arson, but that does not appear to be the case here. The crab shack was a shack in the truest sense of the word as reports indicated the defendant was running a worn extension cord under the door to a chest freezer inside the kitchen. There was no electricity inside the kitchen area, so the defendant used propane tanks, which ultimately exploded when the worn cord started emitting sparks. The explosion was so violent in rocked the defendant’s landlord’s home that was located in front of the shack. Reports indicate that the landlord agreed to lease the shack to the defendant on the condition that he obtain insurance. Allegedly the defendant told his landlord he had insurance but did not, which left the landlord the foot the bill for all the damage. The plot thickened as the defendant allegedly started a fundraising page asking for money to rebuild the shack, when in reality he was not the owner.

The defendant was arrested in Cecil County on August 5, and it appears that he attempted to bring contraband into the Cecil County jail. Court records show he was he was charged with possession of contraband in a place of confinement by the Sheriff’s Department. He was issued a summons on this case and not required to post a bond. This charge requires the State to prove the defendant knowingly possessed contraband, which means he may be able to fight the case by arguing he had no knowledge. Police always search a defendant immediately after placing them under arrest, but sometimes these searches are not thorough. Deputy Sheriffs and Correctional Officers will perform a more thorough search before a defendant is booked into jail, and often these searches can yield a small item that can be considered contraband. It could be a pill or a small piece of a marijuana cigarette that the defendant had no idea was still on his or her person, and if found the detention staff will not hesitate to file charges for contraband introduction. The defendant is due in court in September for the contraband case and has another pending matter for operating a food establishment without a license scheduled for August. Both cases are set in the District Court of Maryland for Cecil County located in downtown Elkton.

Continue reading →

Published on: August 1, 2024

Maryland Teen Facing Five Cases Extradited from Michigan

By Benjamin Herbst

An 18-year-old Carroll County man with multiple outstanding arrest warrants was recently extradited from Michigan back to Maryland and is now being held in the Wicomico County Detention Center without bail. Additional charges have been filed since his return and now according to court records he has been charged with committing five criminal offenses in four separate counties on the same day. In Baltimore County the man is charged with multiple counts of rogue and vagabond and theft alleged to have occurred on May 30, which resulted in a Towson District Court judge issuing an arrest warrant. The alleged crime spree also ran its course on Eastern Shore where the man allegedly committed additional thefts from motor vehicles, disturbed the peace, and destroyed property. He was initially issued an arrest warrant out of Queen Anne’s County for rogue and vagabond, theft, malicious destruction of property and disorderly conduct, but now faces felony burglary and theft charges in another case with the same incident date. As he continued down Route 50 the man allegedly stopped in the Easton area to yet again commit more car burglaries resulting in a Talbot County District Court judge issuing another arrest warrant.

The apparent spree ended in Wicomico County where police allegedly located the man driving a stolen vehicle but were unable to apprehend him as he ditched his ride and fled into the woods. Shortly thereafter the suspect is accused of breaking into a nearby home and stealing a firearm and a truck. The resulting charges from his brief time in Salisbury include first degree burglary, felony theft, possession of a firearm by a minor, handgun in vehicle and motor vehicle theft. This set of charges resulted in the defendant being held without bond, while he was released on this own recognizance in the other three cases. The Wicomico case also likely played a role in the extradition process, as there is a chance he would not have been brought back to Maryland if the charges were limited to misdemeanor rogue and vagabond, theft and disorderly conduct. On the other hand, the fact that there were multiple warrants would likely have been motivation enough for someone from a Maryland law enforcement agency to make the trek to Michigan.

The story brings up a few interesting criminal law issues such as the complicated nature of extradition proceedings. All individuals who are arrested on an out of state warrant have the right to contest their detention and ultimate transfer back to the charging state, but doing so is almost certain to be a losing proposition. A defendant who contests the extradition process may end up serving additional time without receiving credit for the time served. Ultimately the only grounds that can be raised are whether there is a warrant and the defendant is actually the person who is sought. Defendants have no right to challenge the charges or even to attack the existence of probable cause. Contesting extradition is a lengthy process that only requires the state to produce a warrant signed by the governor. Hypothetically the state could fail to provide a Governor’s Warrant by the deadline (usually in the range of 90 days) and the defendant could be released but, in most cases, this is not a strategy worth exploring. This defendant had a short stay in Michigan, which means he almost certainly waived extradition upon being brought before a judge.

Continue reading →

Published on: July 19, 2024

Salisbury Woman Arrested after Crashing into Home, Fleeing Scene

By Benjamin Herbst

Wicomico County Sheriff’s deputies recently arrested a 23-year-old Salisbury woman for numerous traffic offenses after she allegedly drove into another person’s home and fled. Shortly after 5 p.m. dispatch received a call detailing the crash, and when deputies arrived the suspect vehicle was still on the scene. Despite heavy front end damage to the SUV the woman attempted to flee from police but was stopped a short time thereafter. The stop however was temporary, as the female suspect was not quite ready to surrender to the law. After the initial stop she allegedly rammed into a police cruiser and again proceeded to flee. This time the suspect led police along the Route 50 Bypass for a short while where she lost control of the vehicle and hit a guardrail. She again tried to run but ultimately was stopped shortly after her second crash.

The young woman was taken to the hospital and released several hours later to the custody of the sheriff’s office. She was issued a total of 16 traffic citations with several being considered serious. In Maryland serious traffic matters carry a potential jail sentence while minor infractions are only punishable by fines and points. The arresting deputy charged the defendant with multiple counts of DUI and driving while impaired by drugs. One of the citations is for DUI per se, which means she must have submitted to a breath or blood alcohol test that came back above the legal limit of .08. She is also facing multiple counts of fleeing or eluding an officer, as it appears police are trying to say they were forced to chase the suspect two separate times. The same is true for leaving the scene of an accident involving property damage. Police are saying there were two separate accidents as the woman first crashed into the house and then the guardrail. In both cases it is alleged she failed to stick around to exchange insurance information and render aid. It does not appear anyone else suffered bodily injury, which means the leaving the scene charges will carry a maximum penalty of 60 days in jail. Under Maryland law DUI and fleeing from police carry a maximum penalty of 1 year in jail, a $1,000 fine and 12 points upon conviction. The penalties increase if the defendant has prior convictions (up to 2 years in prison) and if someone was injured. The penalty for fleeing or eluding police jumps to 3 years in prison if a person suffered bodily injury. Under Maryland criminal law section 3-211 it is a separate misdemeanor criminal offense to cause life threatening injury while driving a car or boat while under the influence of alcohol.

The defendant in this case has a trial date in late August at the Wicomico County District Court in Salisbury. The Blog will continue to follow this case to see what a potential plea would look like. Based on the apparent amount of evidence it does not appear this case would be suited for a trial, especially when considering the sheer number of citations. In addition to all the serious traffic matters she also faces infractions for reckless driving, speeding and failure to control her vehicle. If you have been charged or are being investigated for leaving the scene of an accident (hit and run), DUI or fleeing from police contact Maryland traffic lawyer Benjamin Herbst anytime at 410-207-2598. Benjamin specializes in serious traffic matters and will fight to keep you out of jail and back on the road with a valid license. He is available anytime to offer a free consultation at 410-207-2598 and handles cases in all Eastern Shore jurisdictions including Wicomico County, Worcester County (Ocean City and Snow Hill), Cambridge and Easton. Benjamin has successfully defended criminal and traffic charges in all 23 Maryland counties plus Baltimore City. He is also an experienced federal DUI lawyer for those who have been charged by the Park Police, Fort Meade Police and all other military and federal law enforcement agencies.

Continue reading →

Published on: July 5, 2024

Former MVA Employee Indicted for Bribery, Misconduct

By Benjamin Herbst

The Maryland Attorney General’s Office recently announced the indictment of three individuals for their alleged roles in an identity theft scheme at an MVA branch in Baltimore City. The individuals were indicted back in April and the scheme allegedly took place in 2022. It is not entirely clear why the AG’s Office waited until July to report the indictments, but all three cases are still in the early stages of prosecution. While all three defendants face felony identity theft scheme and bribery charges, only one defendant has been charged with misconduct in office. This defendant, a 34-year-old woman from Baltimore City, was a MVA employee at the Reisterstown Road branch office. She allegedly conspired with two custodians, who were contracted to perform janitorial services at the branch, to sell drivers’ licenses and learners’ permits for cash.

It turns out that one of the custodians allegedly advertised the scheme on Instagram, which seems like a decision she’ll regret. The Instagram post reportedly offered up the licenses and permits for a fee of $600 and included a free test taker for the written portion of the exam. This test taker was of course one of the co-conspirators who is accused of taking as many as 66 tests under the guise of an actual applicant. The former MVA employer oversaw the tests and is accused of knowingly allowing her co-conspirator to take the tests for a portion of the proceeds. Under Maryland law bribery is charged when a person accepts or solicits a bribe. The two custodians face bribery and conspiracy to commit bribery charges while the former state employee faces one bribery count and the aforementioned misconduct in office charge.

Bribery cases are relatively uncommon in Maryland courts, and as a result tend to be treated with more attention and scrutiny. Bribery always involves at least two people, and one must be some sort of public employee or officer. Public employees include those working for state or local government entities. In cases where a bribe is offered and accepted the public official and the person offering the bribe would generally be charged as co-defendants. In attempted bribery cases the public employee often reports or arrests the other party on the spot when dealing with police officers. Bribery and attempted bribery are considered the same offense under Maryland criminal law 9-201. The maximum penalty for this offense is 12 years in prison including a 2-year mandatory prison sentence. Since the statute does not specifically say the mandatory portion cannot be suspended there is no mandatory jail sentence in practicality. Public officials who are accused of accepting bribes with typically face more scrutiny from the court system, but anyone charged with this offense has an uphill battle to stay out of jail and keep a clean record.

Continue reading →

Published on: June 24, 2024

Supreme Court Upholds Firearms Ban in Civil Domestic Cases

By Benjamin Herbst

The United States Supreme Court recently decided to uphold a federal statute that criminalizes gun possession for those subject to civil domestic violence court orders. In the 8-1 decision, the Court appeared to offer a looser interpretation of the gun rights afforded by the Second Amendment than the previous landmark ruling in New York Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. The opinion in Bruen cited our Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation in striking down a New York law that previously required citizens to prove a need to obtain a concealed carry permit. In this recent opinion the Supreme Court said the appeals court incorrectly set our searching for a historical twin to the modern law prohibiting respondents in civil domestic violence orders from otherwise lawfully possessing firearms. Rather, the high court admonished the lower court for not for not looking for a historical equivalent that was readily available. Centuries old “going armed” laws banned gun possession for those thought to present a danger to others. Modern civil protective orders are granted in cases where a judge determines the respondent presents a danger to the petitioner, and thus the historical analogue mentioned in Bruen is satisfied.

The law at issue was 18 United States Code section 922, which is one of the most commonly prosecuted gun crimes in federal court. It allows federal prosecutors to charge convicted criminals, fugitives, those dishonorably discharged from the military, juveniles, drug users and the mentally ill with a crime for knowingly possessing a firearm. Subsection (g)(8) deals specifically with those who after being afforded a hearing have been ordered by a judge to refrain from harming or placing in fear a former spouse or intimate partner. Violation of this subsection is a serious felony offense that carries up to 15 years in prison, so even first-time offenders could potentially face a significant prison sentence without ever having been convicted of a crime in the past. We do not see a ton of cases being prosecuted under these circumstances due to the fact that many states have their own laws regarding gun possession by respondents in civil domestic cases. Maryland for example has strict laws regarding firearm possession by respondents in protective order cases. Anyone who is currently under a domestic violence protective order is prohibited from possessing a gun under Public Safety code section 5-133. A violation of this statute could lead to up to five years in prison and additional charges for violation of a protective order under family law section 4-509. Even those who are under a temporary protective order may be prohibited from possessing a firearm if the judge determines a firearm was used or there was a threat of serious bodily harm.

The fact that the law was upheld by the Supreme Court means the protective order subsections of the Maryland Family Law Article will not have to undergo major changes. Striking down the law would have required the legislature to change the language in a host of statues, but now it will be business as usual. Respondents in protective orders will almost always be forced to surrender their firearms after a temporary order is signed by a judge, and in all cases when a final order is effectuated. If you have a question about a protective order, contact Maryland domestic violence lawyer Benjamin Herbst anytime for a free consultation. Benjamin specializes in domestic assault, protective order violations, peace orders, destruction of property, telephone misuse, harassment and all other state and federal crimes. Benjamin is also highly experienced in defending state and federal gun charges such as possession by a convicted felon or other disqualified individual, possession of a firearm at a federal facility and minor in possession of a firearm. He is available 7 days a week to discuss your case and is standing by to take on bail reviews and motions to recall bench warrants or arrest warrants on short notice. Call Benjamin at 410-207-2598 to discuss your case today.

Published on: June 14, 2024

State Police Arrest Ohio Man for Brandishing Paintball Gun

By Benjamin Herbst

The Maryland State Police recently reported the arrest of a 39-year-old Ohio man after an alleged road rage incident on I-70 in Howard County. According to the MSP press release a man called 9-1-1 to report that another motorist pointed a firearm in his direction while traveling westbound on I-70 in Western Howard County. The alleged victim was able to provide a description of the vehicle and the license plate number. Troopers eventually located the suspect’s vehicle traveling through Frederick and initiated a traffic stop. During the traffic stop the driver admitted to officers that he pointed a paintball pistol at the victim and provided said pistol to the the troopers. The man was arrested on the scene. Troopers then consulted with the Howard County State’s Attorney’s Office to determine the appropriate charges and were informed that a felony assault was appropriate under the circumstances.

The Ohio man was also charged with three additional misdemeanors for assault in the second degree, reckless endangerment and disorderly conduct. He was taken to the Howard County Department of Corrections in Jessup where he was later released by a District Court Commissioner on a $10,000 unsecured bail. He does not have a trial date yet because the District Court does not have jurisdiction over the felony assault. The State will have to indict the defendant or file a criminal information in the Circuit Court for Howard County if they remain committed to pursuing the felony. Otherwise, the case will be set for trial in the district court in Ellicott City.

The decision to charge the man with first-degree assault is curious to say the least. Under Maryland criminal law 3-202 felony assault in the first degree is defined as intentionally causing or attempting to cause serious physical injury to another, committing an assault with a firearm or intentionally strangling another. A paintball gun does not meet the definition of a firearm under the criminal code or the public safety code as the paintballs are ejected by compressed air rather than an explosive such as gun powder. The same is true for BB guns and other air guns, which are considered dangerous weapons but not firearms. Obviously, there was no strangulation in this case, so the State would have to believe it can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant attempted to cause serious physical injury to the victim in order to support the felony first-degree assault charge. While the MSP press release did not specifically state what happened during the alleged road rage, there likely must have been some testimony from the victim that the defendant used his vehicle in an overly aggressive manner. We have seen numerous cases where a driver is charged with first-degree assault for attempting to hit a person with his or her vehicle, and a moving vehicle can clearly cause serious bodily injury if used as a weapon. The State could potentially have a case under these circumstances, though a lesser charge is likely more appropriate under these.

Continue reading →