Brown v. State6/9/2000
rom ambiguity, and expresses a definite and simple meaning, courts do not normally look beyond the words of the statute itself to determine legislative intent." Degren v. State, 352 Md. 400, 417, 722 A.2d 887, 895 (1999) (citations omitted). In Tracey v. Tracey, 328 Md. 380, 387, 614 A.2d 590, 594 (1992), however, this Court opined that "the plain meaning rule of construction is not absolute; rather, the statute must be construed reasonably with reference to the purpose, aim, or policy of the enacting body. The Court will look at the larger context, including the legislative purpose, within which statutory language appears." (Citations omitted.) Thus, this Court is not constrained by the literal or usual meaning of the terms at issue. Edgewater Liquors, Inc. v. Liston, 349 Md. 803, 808, 709 A.2d 1301, 1303 (1998). Rather, we must "interpret the meaning and effect of the language in light of the objectives and purposes of the provision enacted." Lewis v. State, 348 Md. 648, 654, 705 A.2d 1128, 1131 (1998) (citing Gargliano v. State, 334 Md. 428, 435, 639 A.2d 675, 678 (1994)).
In determining legislative intent, the Court may resort to the history behind the legislative enactment, Welsh v. Kuntz, 196 Md. 86, 93, 75 A.2d 343, 345 (1950); Barnes v. State, 186 Md. 287, 291, 47 A.2d 50, 52, cert. denied, 329 U.S. 754, 67 S. Ct. 95, 91 L. Ed. 650 (1946), as well as the development of the enactment through the years. See, e.g., C.S. v. Prince George's County Dep't of Soc. Servs., 343 Md. 14, 24, 680 A.2d 470, 475 (1996) (noting that " t is often necessary to look at the development of a statute to discern legislative intent that may not be as clear upon initial examination of the current language of the statute." (quoting Condon v. State, 332 Md. 481, 492, 632 A.2d 753, 758 (1993) (alteration in original))). In reviewing the history of a statute, we must bear in mind that the Legislature is presumed to be aware of the common law as it stands at the time of the enactment and that the law is not intended to change the common law absent an express, specific declaration to do so. See Hardy v. State, 301 Md. 124, 131, 482 A.2d 474, 478 (1984) ("Maryland courts adhere to the policy that statutes are not to be construed to alter the common-law by implication." (citing Bradshaw v. Prince George's County, 284 Md. 294, 302, 396 A.2d 255, 260 (1979); Lutz v. State, 167 Md. 12, 15, 172 A. 354, 355-56 (1934))).
Most jurisdictions have interpreted the common law as recognizing the separate, though related, common law origins of the concepts of "spousal competency" and "spousal privilege." Some have adopted the position urged on us that such statutes are virtually always competency statutes.
Maryland attempted, at one point, to abolish the concept of absolute incompetency, but in the process of enactments and re-enactments has used competency language to limit the effect of the abolition of the old common-law concept of "spousal incompetency" or "spousal disqualification." 1864 Maryland Laws, Chapter 109, section 1, provided, as relevant to the present issue:
Sec. 3. . . . nor, in any criminal proceeding, shall any husband be competent or compellable to give evidence for or against his wife, [and vice-versa], except as now allowed by law, nor in any case, civil or criminal, shall any husband be competent or compellable to disclose any communication made to him by his wife during the marriage, [and vice-versa].
In my view, this statute codified both concepts. It was repealed by 1876 Maryland Laws, Chapter 357, section 1, which purported to repeal and re-enact section 3. The re-enacted statute was couched in general terms "the person so charged shall, at his own request but not ot
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Maryland Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|