Spratt v. State

• Citation: 556 A.2d 667,315 Md. 680
• Decision Date: 01 September 1988
• Docket Number: No. 7,7
• Parties: Kip D. SPRATT v. STATE of Maryland. ,
• Court: Court of Appeals of Maryland

Page 680

315 Md. 680

556 A.2d 667

Kip D. SPRATT v. STATE of Maryland.

No. 7, Sept. Term, 1988.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

April 14, 1989.

Julia Doyle Bernhardt, Asst. Public Defender (Alan H. Murrell, Public Defender, on brief), Baltimore, for petitioner.

Ann N. Bosse, Asst. Atty. Gen. (J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Atty. Gen., on brief), Baltimore, for respondent.

Argued Before MURPHY, C.J., and ELDRIDGE, COLE, RODOWSKY, McAULIFFE, ADKINS and BLACKWELL, JJ.

BLACKWELL, Judge.

While the crime of malicious destruction of property has been traditionally recognized at common law as one criminal offense, ¹ Maryland has codified the offense so that for many purposes it is treated as two separate crimes based upon the value of the property destroyed. ² This gradation became effective as of July 1, 1985. Under the new statutory scheme, it is the responsibility of the State to specify and prove the value of the property destroyed to establish the proper classification of the offense. It is essential for the trier of fact to determine value where it is alleged that the property's worth is greater than $300.

Petitioner, Kip D. Spratt (Spratt), was charged and convicted of malicious destruction of property pursuant to Maryland Code (1957, 1987 Repl.Vol.), Art. 27, § 111, ³ and damaging or tampering with an automobile, a 1977 Plymouth Arrow. ⁴ During the trial held in the Circuit Court for Cecil County, the jury was not instructed to consider the value of the property involved. On April 6, 1987, the court imposed a sentence of three years imprisonment for malicious destruction of property, ordered the defendant to pay $250.00 to the Public Defender's Office, and to pay $925.00 to the victim as restitution. For sentencing purposes, the defendant's conviction for damaging or tampering with an automobile was merged. The Court of Special Appeals affirmed in an unreported opinion. We granted certiorari to consider whether a jury finding on value is necessary for imposition of a sentence for malicious destruction of property of a value of $300 or greater.

At Spratt's trial, Theresa Ruckman (Ruckman), the owner of the 1977 Plymouth, testified concerning the value of the car. Ruckman stated that prior to its being damaged the vehicle was worth "at least a thousand dollars." Because she was unable to have the car repaired, it was sold for $75.00. According to the victim, the car was in good condition prior to the incident. ⁵ Afterwards, the owner stated that two side view mirrors had been removed, the back window had been smashed, and in several places the body had been kicked in or dented.

The trial judge did not instruct the jury to make a finding as to the value of the damaged vehicle. Neither counsel objected nor sought such an instruction. Therefore, the jury convicted Spratt of the general offense of malicious destruction of property. At sentencing, the court noted I'm satisfied that the car has a value of over $300.00. The testimony in the case by the young lady was that it was worth a thousand dollars; that it was in good working order, good condition. She couldn't repair it and she sold it only for $75.00. So, I'm satisfied that the car was worth over $300.00, in order to satisfy the statute.

The trial judge rejected Spratt's argument that the record was insufficient to support a conviction of the greater offense, and that the court was required to presume the value of the vehicle was less than $300.00.

Petitioner's primary argument is that a jury finding on value is necessary for imposition of a sentence for malicious destruction of property of a value of $300 or greater. The imposition of a sentence in excess of sixty days in the present case allegedly constituted an illegal sentence because the jury made no finding as to value. The State's position may be summarized as follows: "The Court of Special Appeals correctly determined that the amount of the value of the property destroyed by Spratt is merely a sentencing consideration and not an element of the offense." Because of the General Assembly's intention to treat the crime of malicious destruction of property as one offense, but with separate classifications in Art. 27, § 111(b) and (c), and due to the fact no jury finding was made as to value in the present case, we shall vacate Spratt's sentence. See ch. 479, Laws of 1985.

Effective July 1, 1985, the legislature altered the offense of malicious destruction of property as follows: If the property defaced, destroyed, injured or molested has a value of less than $300, a fine not exceeding $500 or imprisonment not exceeding sixty days or both may be imposed. If the property has a value of $300 or more, a fine not exceeding $2,500 or imprisonment not exceeding three years or both may be imposed. ⁶ See Art. 27, § 111. The cardinal rule of statutory construction is to ascertain the actual intent of the General Assembly. Comptroller v. American Satellite Corp., 312 Md. 537, 544, 540 A.2d 1146, 1150 (1988); Dean v. Pinder, 312 Md. 154, 161, 538 A.2d 1184, 1188 (1988); Blum v. Blum, 295 Md. 135, 140, 453 A.2d 824, 827 (1983). While the primary source from which to determine the intention is the language of the statute itself, commonly referred to as "the plain meaning rule" of statutory interpretation, we note the plain-meaning rule "is not a complete, all-sufficient rule for ascertaining a legislative intention...." Darnall v. Connor, 161 Md. 210, 215, 155 A. 894, 896 (1931); Kaczorowski v. City of Baltimore, 309 Md. 505, 511-14, 525 A.2d 628, 632 (1987). The "meaning of the plainest language" is controlled by the context in which it appears. Guardian Life Ins. Co. v. Ins. Comm'r, 293 Md. 629, 642, 446 A.2d 1140, 1147 (1982); Kaczorowski, 309 Md. at 514, 525 A.2d at 632.

In Kaczorowski, we thoroughly analyzed the process of discovering the purpose, aim, or policy of a statutory provision. There, Judge Adkins writing for the Court, elaborated:

When we pursue the context of statutory language, we are not limited to the words of the statute as they are printed in the Annotated Code. We may and often must consider other 'external manifestations' or 'persuasive evidence' including a bill's title and function paragraphs, amendments that occurred as it passed through the legislature, its relationship to earlier and subsequent legislation, and other material that fairly bears on the fundamental issue of legislative purpose or goal which becomes the context within which we read the particular language before us in a given case.

Id., 309 Md. at 514-15, 525 A.2d at 632-33 (emphasis added).

As an example of external considerations, we have previously considered legislative history to assist in construing legislation that we did not identify as ambiguous or of uncertain meaning. Ogrinz v. James, 309 Md. 381, 390, 524 A.2d 77, 82 (1987) (where a committee report was discussed). Here, we find it appropriate to briefly examine the relevant legislative history of Chapter 479 of the Laws of 1985. In its Committee Report, the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee noted, "The purpose of House Bill 1675 is to reduce the number of misdemeanor jury trials in this area of the law." Summary of Comm. Rep. on H.B. 1675, at 2 (1985). The stated "legislative intent" was phrased as follows:

The intent of House Bill 1675 is to alter the existing penalty for the malicious destruction of property by establishing a penalty for destroyed property with a value under $300 and to provide that the new penalty carries a maximum fine of $500 or a maximum imprisonment of 60 days or both.

Id., at 1.

In order to carry out this stated purpose, we hold that it is necessary for the trier of fact to make a finding as to value when the State is seeking a conviction under Art. 27, § 111(c). It was essential for the jury to be instructed as to value in the present case. Prior to the enactment of the 1985 amendments, neither § 111 nor any of its statutory predecessors referred to the amount of the value of the property destroyed. ⁷ The present statutory scheme permits the State to proceed under the lesser offense, subsection (b), and avoid the possibility of a misdemeanor jury trial on the merits. ⁸ However, if the State wishes to pursue the more serious offense under subsection (c), it must specifically charge and prove the value of the destroyed property, greater than $300. The defendant is entitled to a finding by the trier of fact that the State's charge of the greater offense was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. We note that the Maryland Criminal Pattern Jury Instructions provide for instructing the jury on value. ⁹ Although the evidence in the present case may have warranted a factual finding that the value of the property so destroyed or injured was more than $300.00, the jury was not instructed on this point. It was reversible error for the trial judge to sentence Spratt on the greater offense under these circumstances.

Maryland case law generally supports the notion that where a criminal statute separates the offense by a value determination, it is necessary for the State to prove value in terms of the sufficiency of the evidence. Stanley v. State, 313 Md. 50, 91, 542 A.2d 1267, 1287 (1988) (In a case involving the charge of malicious destruction of property, Judge Adkins, writing for the court, reasoned "Trice argues and the State concedes that there was no proof that the property destroyed exceeded $300 in value, so the two three-year sentences are improper."); Felkner v. State, 218 Md. 300, 307, 146 A.2d 424, 429 (1958) ("Where the statute measures the degree of the burglary by the value of the goods which were intended to be stolen, the evidence must permit the trier of facts reasonably to infer that it was intended to take goods of that value or more if there is to be a conviction.") (citations omitted); Shipley v. State, 220 Md. 463, 466, 154 A.2d 708, 709 (1959) ("It is necessary for the State, in order to establish felonious...