IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND - Case Opinion on Juvenile Delinquency and Wanton Trespass

Sep 15, 2026

Uploaded by Fahsai

This Maryland Court of Appeals opinion addresses whether Maryland Rule 4-324(a) applies to juvenile delinquency trials and considers related substantive questions about the required mens rea for the Maryland statutory offense prohibiting wanton trespass upon private land. The matter arises from allegations involving a 16-year-old’s trespass after written notice and the statutory evolution from “bona fide claim of right” to “good faith claim of right.” The opinion also recites the juvenile hearing evidence, including testimony describing repeated unauthorized entry and the absence of permission by the property owners.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryLetters

FormatPDF

Pages31

Reading Time11 min

AccessFree to download

In the Court of Appeals of Maryland

Procedural Issue: Applicability of Maryland Rule 4-324(a)

Substantive Issue: Mens rea for Wanton Trespass

Statutory Framework and Recodification

Case Background and Allegations

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND | No . 120
September Term, 2003 | | --- | | IN RE: ANTOINE M . | | Bell, C. J. , Raker Wilner Cathell Harrell Battaglia
Eldridge, John C . (Retired, Specially Assigned),
JJ. | | Opinion by Eldridge, J. Wilner, Cathell, and Harrell, JJ. , Dissent | Filed: September 14, 2006 This case presents the procedural issue of whether Maryland Rule 4-324(a) has any application to juvenile delinquency trials.1 The case also presents substantive issues concerning the requisite mens rea under the Maryland statute prohibiting“wanton trespass upon private land.”2 1 Maryland Rule 4-324(a) states as follows: “Rule 4-324. Motion for judgment of acquittal. “(a) Generally. A defendant may move for judgment of acquittal on one or more counts, or on one or more degrees of an offense which by law is divided into degrees, at the close of the evidence offered by the State and, in a jury trial, at the close of all the evidence. The defendant shall state with particularity all reasons why the motion should be granted. No objection to the motion for judgment of acquittal shall be necessary. A defendant does not waive the right to make the motion by introducing evidence during the presentation of the State's case.” * * * 2 Maryland Code (1957, 1996 Repl. Vol., 2000 Supp.), Art. 27, §§ 576 and 577, which was in effect when the alleged delinquent act of“wanton trespass” occurred in the present case, provides in pertinent part as follows: § 576. Definitions. (a) In general. In this subheading the following words have the meanings indicated. * * * (d) Wanton. “Wanton” retains its judicially determined meaning. § 577. Wanton trespass upon private land or vessel; legislation by Baltimore City prohibiting denial of accommodations, etc., by public places. (a) Trespassing. * * * (continued...) -2- 2 ( ...continued) (2)(i) A person may not remain on, enter on, or cross over anyland, premises, or private property...after having been duly notified by the owner or owner’s agent not to do so. * * * (iii) It is intended that this paragraph is only to prohibit any wanton entry and may not be construed to apply to the entry on or crossing over any land when the entry or crossing is done under a bona fide claim or right or ownership. The above provisions were re-codified by Ch. 26 of the Acts of 2002, Maryland Code (2002),§ 6-403 of the Criminal Law Article, effective October 1, 2002. The phrase “bona fide claim of right” in Art. 27, § 577, was replaced by the phrase “good faith claim of right” in § 6-403. In addition, the “good faith claim of right” language and the “wanton entry” language were placed indifferent subsections. According to the Revisor’s Note, no “substantive change” was intended by the re-codification. Section 6-403 provides as follows: § 6-403. Wanton trespass on private property. (a) Prohibited-Entering and crossing property. A person may not enter or crossover private property or board the boat or other marine vessel of another, after having been notified by the owner or the owner’s agent not to do so, unless entering or crossing under a good faith claim or right or ownership. (b) Same-Remaining on property. A person may not remain on private property includingthe boat or other marine vessel of another, after having been notified by the owner or the owner's agent not to do so. (c) Penalty. A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction is subject to imprisonment not exceeding 90 days or a fine not exceeding $500 or both. (d) Construction of section. This section prohibits only wanton entry on private property. (e) Applicability to housing projects. This section also applies to property that is used as a housing project and operated by a housing authority or State public body, as those terms are defined in Article 44A of the Code, if an authorized agent of the housing authority or State public body gives the required notice

FAQs

Does Maryland Rule 4-324(a) apply to juvenile delinquency trials?

The opinion presents this procedural issue directly, focusing on whether the rule governs juvenile delinquency proceedings.

What mens rea question does the case raise regarding wanton trespass?

The case raises substantive issues about the requisite mens rea under Maryland’s statute prohibiting wanton trespass upon private land.

What notice and statutory elements are central to the alleged wanton trespass?

Central elements include that the juvenile received written notice not to enter the private property, and statutory construction distinguishes prohibited wanton entry from entry made under a good faith claim of right or ownership.

Sep 15, 2026

Uploaded by Fahsai