Marks v. Criminal Injuries Compensation Board
7 A.3d 665
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2010Background
- Malcolm Marks sought victim's compensation under the Maryland Criminal Injuries Compensation Act.
- The Board denied benefits, affirmed by the Secretary, prompting judicial review.
- Marks was shot on Sept. 17, 2006, while checking his mother's vacant Northeast Baltimore home; Corey Harrison was the shooter.
- Marks testified and identified Harrison; Board witnesses included Detective Miller and Investigator McKoy.
- Board credited Miller's testimony alleging Marks participated in narcotics activity and that this conduct contributed to the injury; Marks disputed the characterizations of his criminal history.
- Circuit court upheld the Board's denial based on substantial evidence, and the Board's decision was reviewed for legality and substantial evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What causation standard governs 'contributed' under §11-810(d)? | Marks contends proximate cause applies. | Board contends 'contribute' is broader than proximate cause. | proximate cause applies to 'contributed' under §11-810(d)(1)(i) and (d)(3)(ii). |
| Did Marks’ conduct proximately cause his injuries to deny benefits? | Marks argues no proximate link to current injury. | Board found ongoing narcotics activity foreseeable and contributory. | Yes; the conduct was a proximate cause or substantial contributor under the statute. |
| Was the Board’s use of criminal history information (CHRI) proper? | CHRI disclosure violated federal/state law and should be excluded. | Use of CHRI was permissible and not grounds to reverse; issue not preserved. | The issue was not preserved for review; CHRI use not reversed the decision. |
| Was the Board required to reweigh credibility or were its fact findings proper? | Marks challenges Board credibility determinations (Detective Miller). | Board credited Miller; determinations entitled to deference. | Board's credibility determinations supported by substantial evidence; affirmed. |
| Is the decision consistent with remedial nature of the Act? | Remedial nature requires liberal construction of eligibility. | Eligibility limited by §11-810; contributory conduct valid." | The Board's denial consistent with statutory framework and substantial evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Opert v. Criminal Injuries Compensation Bd., 403 Md. 587 (Md. 2008) (remedial statute; liberal construction favored)
- Criminal Injuries Compensation Bd. v. Gould, 273 Md. 486 (Md. 1975) (origin of statute; contributory conduct framework)
- Johnson v. Criminal Injuries Compensation Bd., 145 Md.App. 96 (Md. 2002) (burden-shifting when causation issue arises; hearsay concerns)
- Neal v. Criminal Injuries Compensation Bd., 191 Md.App. 664 (Md. 2010) (standard of review; substantial evidence in CICB appeals)