Leopold v. State
216 Md. App. 586
| Md. Ct. Spec. App. | 2014Background
- John R. Leopold, Anne Arundel County Executive (elected 2006, reelected 2010), was indicted on four counts of common-law misconduct in office and one count of fraudulent misappropriation; bench trial resulted in convictions on Counts 1 and 3 and acquittals on the rest.
- Count 1 alleged misuse of Executive Protection Detail (EPD) officers to perform political/campaign tasks (e.g., unloading/distributing ~1,000 campaign signs, placing and checking signs, picking up campaign contributions, creating opponent dossiers) while on duty and paid by the county.
- Count 3 alleged misuse of county employees for personal purposes, most prominently requiring his assistant (Patricia Medlin) and EPD officers to empty and manage his urinary catheter collection bag despite medical alternatives and an obvious power imbalance.
- Trial evidence showed officers and staff complied because they feared refusal would risk their jobs; Leopold had been warned his use of on-duty employees for campaign tasks was improper and at least once acknowledged an understanding that on-duty officers placing signs was not allowed.
- The circuit court found Leopold acted "corruptly" and committed misconduct in office for both the campaign-use of on-duty officers and the abusive demands to care for his catheter bag; it sentenced him to concurrent terms and imposed probation with a special condition prohibiting him from being a candidate for elected office.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether common-law misconduct in office is unconstitutionally vague/overbroad as applied | Leopold: crime is amorphous; prior cases cover different conduct (bribery, falsification, misappropriation) so he lacked fair notice that his actions were criminal | State: common-law misconduct covers corrupt exercise of official duties (malfeasance/misfeasance/nonfeasance); facts here gave clear notice (directing on-duty officers to campaign; oppressive use of staff) | Court: convictions affirmed; statute not unconstitutionally vague as applied; conduct was objectively wrongful and gave fair notice |
| Whether probation condition barring candidacy for office was legal | Leopold: condition intrudes on separation of powers and statutory/constitutional schemes governing eligibility and removal of officeholders; only legislature/county processes determine candidacy/eligibility | State: condition was tailored to the offenses and related to preventing recurrence (relied on Henson) | Court: condition struck as illegal because it improperly interfered with election eligibility and removal schemes vested in legislature/charter; remainder of sentence affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Duncan v. State, 282 Md. 385 (definition and elements of common-law misconduct in office)
- Chester v. State, 32 Md. App. 593 (misconduct conviction upheld where official demanded political contributions from employees under threat)
- Sheppard v. State, 344 Md. 143 (probation conditions cannot conflict with statutory regulatory schemes)
- Towers v. State, 92 Md. App. 183 (court may not impose probation conditions that infringe on statutorily delegated regulatory authority)
- Hall v. Prince George’s Cnty. Democratic Cent. Comm., 431 Md. 108 (office may be vacated by operation of law for convictions involving moral turpitude related to duties)
- Sifrit v. State, 383 Md. 77 (appellate standard for bench-tried cases reviewing factual findings)
- Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (vagueness doctrine principles)
- Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358 (vagueness concerns when construing criminal statutes)
- Giaccio v. Pennsylvania, 382 U.S. 399 (due process/vagueness precedent)
- Smith v. Goguen, 415 U.S. 566 (recognition that some normative standards cannot be textually precise)
- U.S. v. Richmond, 550 F. Supp. 605 (district court voided plea provisions requiring resignation/withdrawal as unconstitutional interference with legislative branch/electoral process)