EXPLANATION: CAPITALS INDICATE MAT TER ADDED TO EXISTIN G LAW.
[Brackets] indicate matter deleted from existing law.
*hb0703*
HOUSE BILL 703
E2 5lr1923
CF SB 507
By: Delegates Kaufman, Allen, Feldmark, Guyton, McComas, Phillips, Schindler,
Shetty, Taveras, and Terrasa
Introduced and read first time: January 24, 2025
Assigned to: Judiciary
A BILL ENTITLED
AN ACT concerning 1
Criminal Procedure – Diagnosis of Developmental Disability or Intellectual 2
Disability – Evidence 3
FOR the purpose of providing that certain evidence of certain diagnoses is admissible in a 4
criminal proceeding under certain circumstances; requiring a judge or a District 5
Court commissioner to consider any diagnosis for the defendant of a certain 6
developmental disability or intellectual disability when making a pretrial release 7
determination; and generally relating to criminal defendants who have been 8
diagnosed with developmental disability or intellectual disability. 9
BY adding to 10
Article – Courts and Judicial Proceedings 11
Section 10–926 12
Annotated Code of Maryland 13
(2020 Replacement Volume and 2024 Supplement) 14
BY adding to 15
Article – Criminal Procedure 16
Section 5–216 17
Annotated Code of Maryland 18
(2018 Replacement Volume and 2024 Supplement) 19
BY repealing and reenacting, without amendments, 20
Article – Health – General 21
Section 7–101(g) and (n) 22
Annotated Code of Maryland 23
(2023 Replacement Volume and 2024 Supplement) 24
SECTION 1. BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF MARYLAND, 25
That the Laws of Maryland read as follows: 26 2 HOUSE BILL 703
Article – Courts and Judicial Proceedings 1
10–926. 2
IN A CRIMINAL PROCEED ING, EVIDENCE, INCLUDING EXPERT TES TIMONY, 3
CONCERNING A DIAGNOSIS FOR THE DEFENDANT OF AN AUTISM SPECTRU M 4
DISORDER, AS DEFINED IN THE MO ST RECENT EDITION OF THE DIAGNOSTIC AND 5
STATISTICAL MANUAL OF MENTAL DISORDERS, OR OF A DEVELOPMENTA L 6
DISABILITY OR AN INTELLECTUAL DISABIL ITY, AS DEFINED IN § 7–101 OF THE 7
HEALTH – GENERAL ARTICLE, IS ADMISSIBLE IF THE EV IDENCE: 8
(1) TENDS TO SHOW THAT TH E DEFENDANT , AT THE TIME OF THE 9
ALLEGED OFFENSE , DID OR DID NOT HAVE THE MENTAL STATE REQUIRE D FOR THE 10
OFFENSE CHARGED ; AND 11
(2) IS OTHERWISE ADMISSIB LE UNDER THE MARYLAND RULES. 12
Article – Criminal Procedure 13
5–216. 14
A JUDGE OR A DISTRICT COURT COMMISSIONER SH ALL CONSIDER ANY 15
DIAGNOSIS FOR THE DE FENDANT OF A DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITY OR AN 16
INTELLECTUAL DISABIL ITY, AS DEFINED IN § 7–101 OF THE HEALTH – GENERAL 17
ARTICLE, WHEN MAKING A PRETRIAL RELEASE DETERMINATION . 18
Article – Health – General 19
7–101. 20
(g) “Developmental disability” means a severe chronic disability of an individual 21
that: 22
(1) Is attributable to a physical or mental impairment, other than the sole 23
diagnosis of mental illness, or to a combination of mental and physical impairments; 24
(2) Is manifested before the individual attains the age of 22; 25
(3) Is likely to continue indefinitely; 26
(4) Results in an inability to live independently without external support 27
or continuing and regular assistance; and 28
HOUSE BILL 703 3
(5) Reflects the need for a combination and sequence of special, 1
interdisciplinary, or generic care, treatment, or other services that are individually planned 2
and coordinated for the individual. 3
(n) “Intellectual disability” means a developmental disability that is evidenced by 4
significantly subaverage intellectual functioning and impairment in the adaptive behavior 5
of an individual. 6
SECTION 2. AND BE IT FURTHER ENACTED, That this Act shall take effect 7
October 1, 2025. 8