189 A.3d 807
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2018Background
- Christopher Noble was on probation for a 2013 conviction (conspiracy to possess narcotics with intent to distribute); probation later reinstated and modified.
- On April 29, 2016, Noble was found unconscious with signs of opioid overdose; paramedics administered naloxone after Noble’s girlfriend called 911; Noble admitted possibly taking Percocet.
- Division of Parole and Probation charged Noble with probation violations including failure to abstain from drugs, based on evidence discovered after the 911 call.
- Noble moved to dismiss under Md. Code (2017 Supp.) Crim. Proc. § 1-210 (Good Samaritan/overdose immunity), arguing immunity from sanctions because the evidence was obtained solely as a result of someone calling for medical assistance.
- The circuit court denied the motion, concluding Noble was not covered because he did not personally seek or provide the medical assistance; it revoked probation and sentenced him to 18 months.
- The Court of Special Appeals vacated the revocation as to the drug-use-based finding, holding § 1-210(d) bars sanctions when evidence was obtained solely because a person sought, provided, or assisted with medical assistance — and the overdose victim need not be the caller.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CP § 1-210(d) bars probation sanctions when evidence of violation was obtained solely because a bystander (not the victim) sought medical assistance | Noble: § 1-210(d) immunity applies because evidence was obtained solely due to a 911 call for medical assistance (regardless who called) | State: § 1-210(d) protects only persons who themselves seek, provide, or assist with medical assistance; Noble did not do so | Court: § 1-210(d) prohibits sanctioning a person if the evidence was obtained solely as a result of someone seeking/providing/assisting medical assistance; victim need not be the caller; vacated revocation as to drug-use finding |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Peninsula Reg’l Med. Ctr., 440 Md. 573 (explaining the cardinal rule of statutory interpretation)
- Espina v. Jackson, 442 Md. 311 (statutory language may be ambiguous when read in statutory context and legislative history may be consulted)
- Hammonds v. State, 436 Md. 22 (remedy when an improperly used probation violation supports revocation is vacation and remand)
- Ballard v. State, 452 Md. 467 (appellate review of a trial court's interpretation of a statute is de novo)
- Broadous v. Commonwealth, 795 S.E.2d 904 (Va. 2017) (construing similar statute to require active seeking of assistance; discussed and distinguished)