MARVIN MANDEL, Governor                                 143

70-2(e)(3), and 94. The commission
proposed elimination of the requirement of
prior adjudication of the child as a
hindrance to prosecutions under this
section. The proposal was based on Art.
26, §91 which seems not to require prior
adjudication. The proposal was rejected by
the Senate Judicial Proceedings and House
Judiciary Committees which considered this
proposal as being a controversial
substantive change which was beyond the
scope of code revision.

The provisions of §70-2 (a) (7) dealing with
exemption of Baltimore City from the
general statewide juvenile age limit of 18
years has been declared unconstitutional

and is therefore deleted. (See Long v.

Robinson, 436 Fed 2nd 1116 (1971); Green v.
State, 11 fid. App. 106 (1971).

Subsection (b) is derived from Art. 26, §§
70-2(e) (3) and 94. Its provisions are
placed after general provisions contained
in subsection (a), because they are
complementary to the jurisdictional
provisions. Incidentally, this
organization is similar to that found in
Title 4, subtitle 5 (Montgomery County
Juvenile Causes). It may be observed that
these provisions provide no more than an
alternate forum to a defendant charged with
contributing to the delinquency, neglect or
need of supervision of a minor and that it
does not allow the defendant a choice of
charges but merely a choice of forums.
(See Smith v. State, 10 Md. App. 175
(1970) .

SEC. 3-806. JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE CUSTODY OR
APPOINT GUARDIAN.

THE COURT MAY DETERMINE THE CUSTODY OR APPOINT A
GUARDIAN OF THE PERSON OF A CHILD ONLY IF THE CHILD IS
OTHERWISE SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT.

REVISOR'S NOTE: This section is new language
derived from Art. 26, §70-2 (b)- This
section reflects the staff's understanding
of the present law, i.e., a juvenile court
has jurisdiction over guardianship only in