1776 And Sodomy In Maryland

Answering a question posed by the federal circuit court, the Maryland Court of Appeals applied the understanding of robbery in 1776 and concluded that robbery by threat to accuse the victim of sodomy was not a seperate species of robbery offense at the time of the American Revolution

We determine that Maryland robbery has never included alternative modalities based on threats to property or threats to accuse another of sodomy. But even if one or both of these modalities became part of Maryland common law in 1776, this Court subsequently defined the elements of robbery without referencing threats to property or threats to accuse another of sodomy. It was this judicially determined meaning of robbery – which only included the use or the threatened use of force against the person – that the General Assembly codified in 2000.

A tell

It is telling that we can find no case in the annals of Maryland legal history in which the State obtained a conviction for robbery based on a threat to property or a threat to accuse the victim of sodomy. Thus, there is no “judicially determined meaning” of Maryland robbery, as stated in a decision issued by this Court, that includes either of the theories proffered by [defendant] Dickson.

However, the cases are legion in which this Court has identified force or the threat of force as an essential element of a robbery charge. Indeed, as this Court has previously noted, the “hallmark” of robbery that distinguishes it from other forms of theft is that robbery requires “the presence of force or threat of force.”

Answer

we answer the Fourth Circuit’s Certified Question in the negative and hold that, under Maryland law, an individual cannot be convicted of robbery by means of threatening force against property or threatening to accuse the victim of having committed sodomy.

The appellate issue arose in addressing whether the defendant had committed a violent prior offense for sentencing purposes. (Mike Frisch)