In re Gloria H.
| Decision Date | 14 September 2009 |
| Docket Number | No. 15 September Term, 2008.,15 September Term, 2008. |
| Citation | 979 A.2d 710,410 Md. 562 |
| Parties | In re GLORIA H. |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Stacy W. McCormack, Asst. Public Defender (Nancy S. Forster, Public Defender, Baltimore, MD), on brief, for Appellant.
Jessica V. Carter, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Douglas F. Gansler, Atty. Gen. of Maryland, Baltimore, MD), on brief, for Appellee.
ARGUED BEFORE BELL, C.J., HARRELL, BATTAGLIA, GREENE, MURPHY, ADKINS and BARBERA, JJ.
In this appeal from the Circuit Court for Prince George's County, sitting as a Juvenile Court, we hold that the State's evidence was sufficient as a matter of law to establish that Gloria H., Appellant, violated the compulsory public school attendance law set forth in § 7-301 of the Education Article. We also hold, however, that Appellant is entitled to a new trial on the issue of whether she was "involved" in a violation of that statute.
§ 3-8A-03 of the Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, in pertinent part, provides:
(c) Criminal cases under compulsory public school attendance laws. — The jurisdiction of the [Juvenile] court is concurrent with that of the District Court in any criminal case arising under the compulsory public school attendance laws of this State.
At all times relevant to the case at bar, § 7-301 of the Education Article,1 in pertinent part, provided:
Compulsory attendance.
(a) Who must attend. — (1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, each child who resides in this State and is 5 years old or older and under 16 shall attend a public school regularly during the entire school year unless the child is otherwise receiving regular, thorough instruction during the school year in the studies usually taught in the public schools to children of the same age.
* * *
(c) Duty of parent or guardian. — Each person who has legal custody or care and control of a child who is 5 years old or older and under 16 shall see that the child attends school or receives instruction as required by this section.
* * *
(e) Penalties — ....
(2) Any person who has legal custody or care and control of a child who is 5 years old or older and under 16 who fails to see that the child attends school or receives instruction under this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and;
(i) For a first conviction is subject to a fine not to exceed $50 per day of unlawful absence or imprisonment not to exceed 10 days, or both; and
(ii) For a second or subsequent conviction is subject to a fine not to exceed $100 per day of unlawful absence or imprisonment not to exceed 30 days, or both.
(3) As to any sentence imposed under this section, the court may suspend the fine or the prison sentence and establish terms and conditions which would promote the child's attendance. The suspension authority provided for in this subsection is in addition to and not in limitation of the suspension authority under § 6-221 of the Criminal Procedure Article.
Appellant was charged in an Adult Truancy Petition ("Juvenile Petition-Adult") that included the following assertions:
1. That the [Appellant] was born on 09-AUG-1966 and is an adult residing [in] Prince George's County, MD 20743.
2. That your Petitioner alleges that the [Appellant] did:
* * *
c. on or about August 22, 2005 have control over [her daughter, Monica2], a child who was five (5) years or older and under sixteen (16) years of age and who is subject to the compulsory attendance laws of the State as defined in Section 7-301 of the Education Article of the Annotated Code of Maryland, and failed to see that the child attended school or received instruction;
3. That such conduct constitutes a violation of Section 7-301 thereby constituting a criminal misdemeanor[.]
* * *
WHEREFORE, the State asks that the Court make appropriate findings and dispositions[.]
During the adjudicatory hearing on this Petition, the State presented its case through the testimony of Jacqueline Nayes, a Pupil Personnel Worker employed by the Prince George's County Public School System. According to Ms. Nayes, (1) Monica, a student at Suitland High School, had been absent on seventy four of the one hundred eighty days in the Prince George's County Public School System's 2005-2006 school year,3 and (2) from October of 2005 to the end of the school year, she contacted Appellant about Monica's attendance record "at least five times." The following transpired during Ms. Nayes' direct examination:
The following transpired during Ms. Nayes' cross-examination:
Appellant and Monica both testified that, although Monica arrived at her school on a regular basis, Monica rarely attended the classes to which she was assigned.
The following transpired during Appellant's cross-examination:
The following transpired during Monica's cross-examination:
(No verbal response.)
(No verbal response.)
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Grimm v. State
...350 Md. 693, 711, 715 A.2d 188, 196–97 (1998), a civil case.2 See Maj. Op. at 506–07, 135 A.3d at 858–59; see also In re Gloria H., 410 Md. 562, 579, 979 A.2d 710, 719 (2009) (“For the reasons stated in VF Corp. [ ] and Clements, [ ] the [juvenile c]ourt erred in drawing th[e] impermissible......
-
Grimm v. State
...Corp., 350 Md. 693, 711, 715 A.2d 188, 196-97 (1998), a civil case.18 See Maj. Slip Op. at 22-23; see also In re Gloria H., 410 Md. 562, 579, 979 A.2d 710, 719 (2009) ("For the reasons stated in VF Corp.[] and Clements, [] the [juvenile c]ourt erred in drawing th[e] impermissible inference"......
-
PUBLIC DEFENDER v. State
...and we do not engage in forced or subtle interpretation in an attempt to extend or limit the statute's meaning." In re Gloria H., 410 Md. 562, 581, 979 A.2d 710, 720 (2009); see also Chow v. State, 393 Md. 431, 443, 903 A.2d 388, 395 (2006). Instead, each word will be given effect, so that ......
-
Office of the Public Defender v. State, No. 9, September Term, 2009 (Md. App. 4/16/2010)
...and we do not engage in forced or subtle interpretation in an attempt to extend or limit the statute's meaning." In re Gloria H., 410 Md. 562, 581, 979 A.2d 710, 720 (2009); see also Chow v. State, 393 Md. 431, 443, 903 A.2d 388, 395 (2006). Instead, each word will be given effect, so that ......