clear space clear space clear space white space
A
 r c h i v e s   o f   M a r y l a n d   O n l i n e
  Maryland State Archives | Index | Help | Search search for:
clear space
white space
Session Laws, 2002
Volume 800, Page 541   View pdf image
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space
PARRIS N. GLENDENING, Governor Ch. 26
(1) TO ENSURE A FAIR TRIAL; AND (2) IF THE CONDUCT OF THE DEFENSE WOULD BE PREJUDICED BY LACK
OF FAIR NOTICE OR BY SURPRISE. REVISOR'S NOTE: This section is new language derived without substantive
change from the second sentence of former Art. 27, § 341. Defined term: "Theft" § 7-101 7-110. DEFENSES AND PRESUMPTIONS. (A) PROHIBITED DEFENSE — INTEREST IN PROPERTY. (1) IT IS NOT A DEFENSE TO THE CRIME OF THEFT THAT THE
DEFENDANT HAS AN INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY THAT WAS THE SUBJECT OF THE
THEFT IF ANOTHER ALSO HAS AN INTEREST IN OR RIGHT TO POSSESS THE
PROPERTY THAT THE DEFENDANT IS NOT ENTITLED TO INFRINGE. (2) IN DETERMINING THE RIGHT OF POSSESSION: (I) A JOINT OR COMMON OWNER OF THE PROPERTY DOES NOT
HAVE A RIGHT OF POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY THAT IS SUPERIOR TO THE RIGHT
OF ANY OTHER JOINT OR COMMON OWNER OF THE PROPERTY; AND (II) IN THE ABSENCE OF A CONTRARY AGREEMENT, A PERSON IN
LAWFUL POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY HAS A RIGHT OF POSSESSION SUPERIOR TO
THE RIGHT OF POSSESSION OF A PERSON WHO HAS ONLY A SECURITY INTEREST IN
THE PROPERTY, EVEN IF LEGAL TITLE TO THE PROPERTY LIES WITH THE HOLDER OF
THE SECURITY INTEREST UNDER A CONDITIONAL SALE CONTRACT OR OTHER
SECURITY AGREEMENT. (B) SAME — ILLEGALLY OBTAINED PROPERTY. IT IS NOT A DEFENSE TO THE CRIME OF THEFT THAT THE PROPERTY WAS
TAKEN, OBTAINED, OR WITHHELD FROM A PERSON WHO HAD OBTAINED THE
PROPERTY BY ILLEGAL MEANS. (C) ALLOWED DEFENSES. IT IS A DEFENSE TO THE CRIME OF THEFT THAT: (1) THE DEFENDANT ACTED UNDER A GOOD FAITH CLAIM OF RIGHT TO
THE PROPERTY INVOLVED; (2) THE DEFENDANT ACTED IN THE HONEST BELIEF THAT THE
DEFENDANT HAD THE RIGHT TO OBTAIN OR EXERT CONTROL OVER THE PROPERTY
AS THE DEFENDANT DID; (3) THE PROPERTY INVOLVED WAS THAT OF THE DEFENDANTS SPOUSE,
UNLESS THE DEFENDANT AND THE DEFENDANT'S SPOUSE WERE NOT LIVING
TOGETHER AS HUSBAND AND WIFE AND WERE LIVING IN SEPARATE RESIDENCES AT
THE TIME OF THE ALLEGED THEFT; OR
- 541 -


 
clear space
clear space
white space

Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Session Laws, 2002
Volume 800, Page 541   View pdf image
 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS  NEXT >>


This web site is presented for reference purposes under the doctrine of fair use. When this material is used, in whole or in part, proper citation and credit must be attributed to the Maryland State Archives. PLEASE NOTE: The site may contain material from other sources which may be under copyright. Rights assessment, and full originating source citation, is the responsibility of the user.


Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!



An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact msa.helpdesk@maryland.gov.

©Copyright  November 18, 2025
Maryland State Archives