Maryland Criminal Law Article § 4-204, which mandates a sentence of five years without parole for the use of a firearm in the commission of a crime of violence, deserves revision. The current law, though designed to deter and punish individuals who use firearms in violent crimes, fails to differentiate between individuals who use firearms in self-defense and those who commit premeditated, malicious crimes. This one-size-fits-all approach often imposes harsh penalties on individuals who may have acted out of genuine fear or necessity, undermining the justice system’s ability to consider the context of each case.
The law’s current framework requires a mandatory five-year sentence without parole for anyone convicted of using a firearm in the commission of a violent crime, with a maximum penalty of up to 20 years. While this is an important tool for punishing those who use firearms to commit violent crimes, the law becomes problematic when applied to self-defense, and other justified use of force cases.
In Maryland, when a defendant asserts a form of justified use of force as a defense, the judge or jury can render one of three verdicts:
- That the state has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that justified use of force does not apply, and the defendant is guilty;
- That the facts of the case support the perfect use of force, which means the defendant was fully justified in their use of force and is found not guilty of the charges the defense applies to; or
- That the defendant is guilty of voluntary manslaughter or assault in the second degree, by way of what is known as the imperfect use of force, which means that the judge or jury finds that the defendant unreasonably believed they were in immediate danger and/or the defendant used an unreasonable degree of force.
In imperfect use of force cases, a person may have used a firearm to protect themselves or others from harm but still faces the same five-year mandatory sentence as a person intentionally committing a violent crime, despite lacking the malicious intent associated with violent offenses.
Under Maryland law, crimes classified as “violent” are listed in Maryland Public Safety Article § 5-101, and include voluntary manslaughter and second-degree assault, both of which carry their own separate maximum penalties that can imposed in addition to the penalty found in Maryland Criminal Law § 4-204. This creates a situation where someone who uses a firearm in a case of self-defense, or other form of justified use of force, is sentenced similarly to a perpetrator committing a violent act with malice. For instance, in cases of imperfect self-defense—where a person may have genuinely believed they were in danger, but their belief was unreasonable, or where the degree of force used was unreasonable—they are still subject to the same mandatory sentencing as individuals who commit crimes with malicious intent.
This knee-jerk imposition of a penalty fails to take into account that individuals acting in self-defense are likely not the aggressors or the ones who raised the conflict to the deadly force level. They may have been put, against their will, into a situation where the use of force was necessary, but still face the same penalty as a criminal who initiates violence for personal gain.
In addition, the harsh penalty deters citizens who use a firearm in self-defense from proceeding to trial out of fear that a guilty verdict will result in the mandatory imposition of five-years imprisonment. It is well known that a public trial is one of the greatest safeguards our system of justice has against injustice, but citizens can feel compelled to accept plea bargains that remove the possibility of mandatory incarceration and prevent the destruction of their family and livelihood. This is an injustice that ties the hands of judges and prosecutors, forcing them to impose a mandatory five-year sentence without parole, even in cases where the defendant lacked the malicious intent central to the law’s original purpose.
To better serve the public interest and ensure that the law is applied fairly, Maryland Criminal Law Article § 4-204 should either be amended to remove justified uses of force from its provisions altogether or to give the trial court discretion in sentencing for such cases. Specifically, in cases where a defendant is convicted of voluntary manslaughter or second-degree assault after a finding of imperfect use of force, the mandatory five-year sentence without parole should not be automatic. Instead, it should be left to the discretion of the prosecutor, who can choose whether to petition the court to seek the mandatory sentence. Once the prosecutor files their request for the mandatory five-years without parole both the prosecutor and the defense could present arguments to the trial court supporting their respective positions, and the judge would consider factors such as: the actor’s history, the presence of malice or ill-intent and the facts and circumstance of the case when determining whether the mandatory sentence should be imposed. This is the same process Maryland courts currently use when a prosecutor seeks to have the court impose a life without parole sentence in a murder case. It is a process where ultimately the decision is left to the trial court who, in most cases, was present throughout the trial and is familiar with the facts and circumstances of the case.
This change would allow the courts to better reflect the nuances of each case and avoid punishing individuals who acted in imperfect self-defense with the same severity as those who commit premeditated, violent crimes like murder and robbery. The purpose of Maryland Criminal Law § 4-204, to deter and punish the use of firearms in violent crimes, would still be served, but the law would no longer unjustly penalize individuals who used deadly force in a moment of fear and in response to what they sincerely believed to be an immediate threat.
Roland S. Harris IV, Esq.
Senior Partner
COHEN|HARRIS LLC
Author of the Maryland Use of Force Handbook