Preview:

HEADNOTES:

In Re: Gloria H., No. 15, September Term, 2008

CRIMINAL LAW; COMPULSORY SCHOOL ATTENDANCE LAW; SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE THAT A PARENT HAS FAILED TO SEE THAT HIS OR HER CHILD ATTENDS SCHOOL: Evidence that a high school student was not in her home-room when her home-room teacher marked her absent is sufficient to support the inference that she did not attend school on that day.

EVIDENCE; INFERENCES; DISBELIEF OF TESTIMONY: Disbelief of a party's exculpatory testimony does not supply affirmative evidence that the opposite of that testimony must be true.

CRIMINAL LAW; COMPULSORY SCHOOL ATTENDANCE LAW; CRIMINAL LIABILITY OF PARENT WHOSE CHILD "ATTENDS SCHOOL," BUT "CUTS" CLASSES: Under the "rule of lenity," the compulsory school attendance law does not impose criminal liability on a parent whose child "enters the school building," but does not attend classes.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 15 September Term, 2008

IN RE: GLORIA H.

Bell, C.J. Harrell, Battaglia Greene Murphy Adkins Barbera, JJ.

Opinion by Murphy, J. Bell, C.J. and Battaglia, J., Concur and Dissent.

Filed: September 14, 2009

In this appeal from the Circuit Court for Prince George's County, sitting as a Juvenile Court, we hold that the State's evidence was sufficient as a matter of law to establish that Gloria H., Appellant, violated the compulsory public school attendance law set forth in

Download In Re: Gloria H..pdf

Maryland Law