Lipp v. State, No. 181, September Term, 2019, Opinion by Graeff, J

Lipp v. State, No. 181, September Term, 2019, Opinion by Graeff, J.

CRIMINAL LAW – HATE CRIMES – DEFACEMENT OF PROPERTY

Md. Code (2012 Repl. Vol., Supp. 2019) § 10-305 of the Criminal Law Article

(“CR”) prohibits the defacement, damage, or destruction of property when “there is

evidence that exhibits animosity against a person or group, because of the race, color,

religious beliefs, sexual orientation, gender, disability, or national origin of that person or

group[.]” Appellant challenged his conviction under CR § 10-305 on the grounds that it

violated his First Amendment right to freedom of speech. The plain language of the statute,

however, makes clear that a conviction may not be based solely on speech. Rather, the

statute permissibly regulates harmful conduct, not the content of the speech. Accordingly,

CR § 10-305 does not violate the First Amendment right to freedom of speech.

Appellant may have had a First Amendment right to spray paint on his own property

the offensive words and symbols used here. Once he combined that action with a criminal

act, however, in this case defacing property of another, his criminal activity was not

protected by the First Amendment.

Circuit Court for Howard County

Case No. C-13-CR-18-000211

REPORTED

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS

OF MARYLAND

No. 181

September Term, 2019

______________________________________

MATTHEW J. LIPP

STATE OF MARYLAND

______________________________________

Graeff,

Nazarian,

Harrell, Glenn T., Jr.

(Senior Judge, Specially Assigned),

JJ.

______________________________________

Opinion by Graeff, J.

______________________________________

Filed: April 30, 2020

Pursuant to Maryland Uniform Electronic Legal Materials Act

(§§ 10-1601 et seq. of the State Government Article) this document

authentic.

Suzanne C. Johnson, Clerk

Suzanne Johnson

2020-04-30 13:09-04:00

Matthew Lipp, appellant, was convicted in the Circuit Court for Howard County of

defacing property where there is evidence exhibiting animosity against groups because of

race, color, religious beliefs, or sexual orientation, in violation of Md. Code (2012 Repl.

Vol.), § 10-305 of the Criminal Law Article (“CR”). Appellant contends that the circuit

court erred in denying his motion to dismiss, arguing that CR § 10-305 is unconstitutional

because it violates the First Amendment right of freedom of speech.

For the reasons set forth below, we disagree, and therefore, we shall affirm the

judgment of the circuit court.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

At approximately 11:30 p.m. on May 23, 2018, appellant and three other individuals

went to Glenelg High School and spray-painted graffiti on the school building, sidewalks,

and trash receptacles. The graffiti included swastikas, anti-LGBTQ phrases, and other

offensive writings, including “KKK,” “n****rs,” and “fuck jews.” In addition, there was

graffiti on a sidewalk that stated: “Burton is a n****r,” referring to the school principal,

who is African-American. The suspects subsequently were identified as four students

attending the school, including 18-year-old appellant. The students ultimately confessed

to the incident.

On July 12, 2018, appellant was indicted on seven criminal charges: two counts of

defacing real and personal property where there is evidence exhibiting animosity against

groups because of their race, color, religious beliefs, or sexual orientation in violation of

The transcript of the plea proceeding was not included in the record. Accordingly,

the facts, which are not in dispute, are taken from the parties’ briefs.

CR § 10-305(2); one count of conspiracy to commit a violation of CR § 10-305(2); one

count of malicious destruction of property over $1,000; one count of conspiracy to commit

malicious destruction of property over $1,000; one count of school trespass and damage;

and one count of conspiracy to commit school trespass and damage.

On December 3, 2018, appellant filed a motion to dismiss the charges involving CR

§ 10-305(2), which provides that

[a] person may not deface, damage, or destroy . . . the real or personal

property connected to a building that is publicly or privately owned, leased,

or used, including a . . . school . . . if there is evidence that exhibits animosity

against a person or group, because of the race, color, religious beliefs, sexual

orientation, gender, disability, or national origin of that person or group or

because that person or group is homeless.

He argued that the statute violated the First Amendment because it impermissibly regulated

protected speech, similar to the city ordinance struck down by the United States Supreme

Court in R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992).

On December 18, 2018, the circuit court held a hearing on appellant’s motion to

dismiss.

Appellant’s attorney argued that, pursuant to CR § 10-305, it was permissible to

use graffiti and refer to someone as a thief, but if that person used an offensive epithet, that

would be illegal. Therefore, counsel asserted that CR § 10-305 regulated content-based

speech and was unconstitutional under R.A.V. Counsel distinguished Wisconsin v.

Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476 (1993), noting that the Wisconsin statute provided for enhanced

An attorney for one of the other defendants charged in the incident also appeared

at the motions hearing, but the cases were not otherwise consolidated.

penalties for a person who committed a violent crime with a particular motive, whereas CR

§ 10-305 criminalizes specific speech.

The State argued that the court should deny the motion to dismiss, asserting that CR

§ 10-305 targets conduct, not speech. It asserted that the statute “takes what is already

criminal conduct,” i.e., defacement of property, and “merely adds a sentence

enhancement.” As a result, the State argued that Mitchell is “directly on point to

Maryland’s hate-crime statute.” The State also argued that it made no difference that CR

§ 10-305 is a separate criminal penalty, as opposed to a sentencing enhancement

accompanying an existing criminal statute, stating that the General Assembly is permitted

to establish penalties by either method.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the court denied appellant’s motion to dismiss. It

explained:

I find that pursuant to the Supreme Court’s holding in Wisconsin v. Mitchell,

508-US-476, that the First Amendment does not protect biased-motivated

speech when it is coupled with non-verbal conduct otherwise proscribed. In

this particular case, malicious destruction of property, trespass on the school

grounds, damaging school property.

The court found “that the Maryland hate-crime statute is essentially a sentence

enhancement statute,” and it is constitutional under Mitchell and “Maryland’s Ayers case.”

On February 6, 2019, appellant was convicted of one count of violating CR § 10-

305(2).

The State nolle prossed the other charges. The court then sentenced appellant to

The State asserts in its brief that appellant was found guilty after entering a plea of

not guilty pursuant to an agreed statement of facts. Appellant, in contrast, states that he

“entered into a conditional guilty plea to one count preserving his right to appeal.” As

three years’ incarceration, all but 48 days suspended, to be served over 15 consecutive

weekends, with supervised probation for three years, 250 hours of community service, and

fines and court costs.

This appeal followed.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

“[T]he standard of review of the grant or denial of a motion to dismiss is whether

the trial court was legally correct.” Howard v. Crumlin, 239 Md. App. 515, 521 (2018)

(quoting Blackstone v. Sharma, 461 Md. 87, 110 (2018)), cert. denied, 463 Md. 153 (2019).

Therefore, we review the dismissal of a motion to dismiss de novo. D.L. v. Sheppard Pratt

Health Sys., Inc., 465 Md. 339, 350 (2019).

DISCUSSION

Appellant argues on appeal that the trial court erred in denying his motion to

dismiss, asserting that CR § 10-305 is unconstitutional because it “penalizes a viewpoint,”

and therefore, it violates the First Amendment right to freedom of speech. He contends

indicated, the transcript of the plea proceeding was not included in the record, but

regardless of the procedural posture, there is no dispute that appellant was convicted as

stated.

On May 9, 2019, appellant filed a Motion for Modification requesting that the

matter be held sub curia pending a requested hearing to reconsider the guilty finding and

grant a probation before judgment. On May 13, 2019, the circuit court issued an order

stating: “ORDERED, that Defendant’s Motion for Modification of Sentence is held sub

curia and shall be set for a hearing upon Defendant’s request.” No further action has been

taken in this regard.

that “nonverbal expressive activity can be banned because of the action it entails, but not

because of the ideas it expresses.”

The State contends that the circuit court properly denied appellant’s motion to

dismiss because CR § 10-305 is constitutional. It asserts that, pursuant to “Supreme Court

precedent, states may not punish pure expression, but they may [punish] criminal conduct

that is motivated by bias.” It argues that CR § 10-305 does not violate the First

Amendment because it targets conduct, not speech.

Free Speech Rights and Hate Crime Statutes

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution, applicable to the states

through the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits Congress from making any law “abridging

the freedom of speech.” Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343, 358 (2003). Content-based

regulation of speech is presumptively invalid under the First Amendment. R.A.V., 505 U.S.

at 382. And the First Amendment “affords protection to symbolic or expressive conduct

as well as to actual speech.” Black, 538 U.S. at 358. See Spence v. Washington, 418 U.S.

405, 409 (1974) (Flag-burning as a form of protest is protected speech under the First

Amendment.).

The right to freedom of speech, however, is “not absolute at all times and under all

circumstances.” Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 571 (1942); Black, 538 U.S.

at 359. “The First Amendment permits ‘restrictions upon the content of speech in a few

Appellant bases his argument solely on the First Amendment. He makes no claim

based on Article 40 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights.

limited areas, which are “of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that

may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and

morality.”’” Black, 538 U.S. at 359–60 (quoting R.A.V., 505 U.S. at 382–83). Examples

include obscenity, defamation, and “‘fighting words,’ i.e., ‘conduct that itself inflicts injury

or tends to incite immediate violence.’” R.A.V., 505 U.S. at 380 (quoting In re Welfare of

R.A.V., 464 N.W.2d 507, 510 (Minn. 1991)). “[T]he First Amendment also permits a State

to ban a ‘true threat,’” i.e., a statement meant to “communicate a serious expression of an

intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular” person. Black, 538 U.S. at

359.

In assessing the constitutionality of CR § 10-305, the parties rely extensively on

R.A.V and Mitchell. In these cases, “the Supreme Court staked out the boundary between

a state’s unconstitutional regulation of unpopular beliefs in the marketplace of ideas and

the permissible regulation of conduct motivated by those beliefs.” People v. Rokicki, 718

N.E.2d 333, 336–37 (Ill. App. Ct. 1999). We begin our analysis with a discussion of these

cases.

R.A.V. and Mitchell

In R.A.V., 505 U.S. at 379, a juvenile and several other teenagers burned a cross on

the yard of an African-American family. The defendant was convicted under St. Paul’s

hate crime ordinance, which provided:

Whoever places on public or private property a symbol, object, appellation,

characterization or graffiti, including, but not limited to, a burning cross or

Nazi swastika, which one knows or has reasonable grounds to know arouses

anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion

or gender commits disorderly conduct and shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

Id. at 380 (quoting St. Paul, Minn., Legis. Code § 292.02 (1990)).

The Minnesota Supreme Court held that the ordinance did not violate the First

Amendment. Id. It found that the modifying phrase “arouses anger, alarm or resentment

in others” limited the ordinance to “fighting words,” and therefore, it reached only

expression “that the first amendment does not protect[.]” Id. at 380–81 (quoting In re

Welfare of R.A.V., 464 N.W.2d at 510).

The Supreme Court reversed, holding that, even if “all of the expression reached

was proscribable under the ‘fighting words’ doctrine,” the ordinance was facially

unconstitutional because it was a content-based and viewpoint-based regulation of speech.

Id. at 381, 391. The Court noted that the ordinance was not a prohibition “of fighting words

that are directed at certain persons or groups (which would be facially valid if it met the

requirements of the Equal Protection Clause),” but rather, the ordinance prohibited only

fighting words containing “messages of ‘bias-motivated’ hatred and in particular, as

applied to this case, messages ‘based on virulent notions of racial supremacy.’” Id. at 392

(quoting R.A.V., 464 N.W.2d at 508, 511).

The Court explained:

[T]he only interest distinctively served by the content limitation is that of

displaying the city council’s special hostility towards the particular biases

thus singled out. That is precisely what the First Amendment forbids. The

politicians of St. Paul are entitled to express that hostility—but not through

the means of imposing unique limitations upon speakers who (however

benightedly) disagree.

Id. at 396 (footnote omitted).

One year later, in Mitchell, the Supreme Court addressed a First Amendment

challenge to a Wisconsin statute that provided for an enhanced sentence if the defendant

committed a crime and intentionally selected the person against whom the crime was

committed or the property which was damaged “because of the race, religion, color,

disability, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry of that person or the owner or

occupant of that property.” 508 U.S. at 479, 480 n.1 (quoting Wis. Stat. § 939.645 (1989)).

In that case, a group of African-American men and boys severely beat a young white boy

based on his race. Id. at 479–80. Mitchell was convicted of aggravated battery. Id. at 480.

This offense ordinarily had a maximum sentence of two years, but because Mitchell

intentionally selected his victim because of the victim’s race, he received an enhanced

sentence pursuant to § 939.645. Id.

The Supreme Court rejected Mitchell’s argument that, because the statute enhanced

the maximum penalty for conduct motivated by a discriminatory motive or point of view,

the statute violated the First Amendment by punishing the offender’s bigoted beliefs. Id.

at 485, 490. It found no constitutional violation because the statute was “aimed at conduct

unprotected by the First Amendment.” Id. at 487–88, 490. The Court noted that “a physical

assault is not by any stretch of the imagination expressive conduct protected by the First

Amendment.” Id. at 484. Nor are “other types of potentially expressive activities that

produce special harms distinct from their communicative impact” entitled to constitutional

protection. Id. (quoting Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 628 (1984)).

In reaching its conclusion that the enhanced punishment based on a defendant’s

discriminatory motive for acting did not render the statute unconstitutional, the Court noted

that motive for committing an offense has long been an acceptable consideration during

sentencing. Id. at 485. Although “a defendant’s abstract belief, however obnoxious to

most people, may not be taken into consideration by a sentencing judge[,]” the

“Constitution does not erect a per se barrier to the admission of evidence concerning one’s

beliefs and associations at sentencing simply because those beliefs and associations are

protected by the First Amendment.” Id. at 485–86 (quoting Dawson v. Delaware, 503 U.S.

159, 165 (1992)). Moreover, the Court noted that “motive plays the same role under the

Wisconsin statute as it does under federal and state antidiscrimination laws,” which

prevents discrimination based on an employee’s race, religion, sex, or national origin, and

which the Court had upheld as a “permissible content-neutral regulation of conduct.” Id.

at 487.

The Court then addressed the distinction between the Wisconsin statute and the

ordinance involved in R.A.V.:

That case involved a First Amendment challenge to a municipal ordinance

prohibiting the use of “‘fighting words’ that insult, or provoke violence, ‘on

the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender.’” [R.A.V.,] 505 U.S., at

391, 112 S. Ct., at 2547 (quoting St. Paul Bias–Motivated Crime Ordinance,

St. Paul, Minn., Legis. Code § 292.02 (1990)). Because the ordinance only

proscribed a class of “fighting words” deemed particularly offensive by the

city—i.e., those “that contain . . . messages of ‘bias-motivated’ hatred,” 505

U.S., at 392, 112 S. Ct., at 2547[,] we held that it violated the rule against

content-based discrimination. See id., at 392–394, 112 S. Ct., at 2547–2548.

But whereas the ordinance struck down in R.A.V. was explicitly directed at

expression (i.e., “speech” or “messages”), id., at 392, 112 S. Ct., at 2547, the

statute in this case is aimed at conduct unprotected by the First Amendment.

Id. at 487.

The Court noted that the “Wisconsin statute singles out for enhancement bias-

inspired conduct because this conduct is thought to inflict greater individual and societal

harm[,]” i.e., it was believed to be “more likely to provoke retaliatory crimes, inflict distinct

emotional harms on their victims, and incite community unrest.” Id. at 487–88. “The

State’s desire to redress these perceived harms provides an adequate explanation for its

penalty-enhancement provision over and above mere disagreement with offenders’ beliefs

or biases.” Id. at 488. Accordingly, the Court held that application of the Wisconsin

penalty-enhancement statute did not violate Mitchell’s First Amendment rights. Id. at 490.

Other Jurisdictions

Although the Maryland appellate courts have not explicitly addressed the

constitutionality of CR § 10-305, other state and federal jurisdictions have addressed their

hate crime statutes using the constitutional framework established in R.A.V. and Mitchell.

These are instructive to our analysis of CR § 10-305.

A hate crime is defined as “[a] felony or misdemeanor motivated by the

perpetrator's prejudice, [usually] an intense bigotry, on the basis of the victim's race, color,

national origin, ancestry, gender, religion, religious practice, age, disability, or sexual

orientation.” Blacks Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019). According to the Federal Bureau of

Investigation hate crime statistics, there were 7,120 hate crime incidents reported in 2018

throughout the country. Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Reporting, 2018

Hate Crime Statistics, Table 1 (2018) https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2018/topic-

pages/incidents-and-offenses, available at https://perma.cc/PXY6-U56W (last visited

March 27, 2020). Today, almost every state, except for Arkansas, Georgia, South Carolina,

and Wyoming, prohibits the commission of hate crimes in some form. United States

Department of Justice, Hate Crimes, Laws and Policies,

https://www.justice.gov/hatecrimes/laws-and-policies, available at

https://perma.cc/U47C-34P7 (last visited March 27, 2020).

In State v. McKnight, 511 N.W.2d 389, 390 (Iowa), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1113

(1994), the Supreme Court of Iowa addressed the constitutionality of an Iowa hate crime

statute in the context of an assault motivated by racism. McKnight was convicted of

infringement of individual rights pursuant to the following statute:

A person who maliciously and intentionally intimidates or interferes with

another person because of that person's race, color, religion, ancestry,

national origin, political affiliation, sex, sexual orientation, age, or disability

and while doing so commits any of the following acts, is guilty of an

aggravated misdemeanor:

a. Commits an assault, as defined in section 708.1, upon that person or a third

person.

b. Commits an act of criminal mischief, as defined in section 716.1, upon

that person or a third person.

Id. at 390–91 (quoting Iowa Code § 729.5(3) (1991)).

Noting the striking resemblance of the Iowa statute to the Wisconsin statute upheld

in Mitchell, the court held that the law was constitutional because “bias motivated speech,

coupled with assaultive or other nonverbal, proscribed conduct, is not protected by the First

Amendment.” Id. at 395–96. It explained:

Had McKnight limited his attack on [the victim] to mere words, the First

Amendment would have protected his right to do so. He lost that protection

when his racial bias toward blacks drove him to couple those words with

assaultive conduct toward [the victim], who is black. In these circumstances,

the words and the assault are inextricably intertwined for First Amendment

purposes.

Id. at 395.

The court was not persuaded that the Iowa statute was different from the Wisconsin

statute in the way they were structured. Id. at 396. The court explained:

Both are directed at nonverbal, proscribed conduct—for example, assault—

motivated by bias. Both proscribe such conduct in other criminal statutes.

Both increase punishment for the proscribed conduct. In the case of section

729.5(3), the enhancement is from a misdemeanor to an aggravated

misdemeanor; in the case of the Wisconsin statute, the penalties are simply

increased. In each instance, the legislatures had good reason for the

enhancement provisions. Because of these similarities, Mitchell II controls

our decision. Like the Wisconsin statute, section 729.5(3) is, we hold, aimed

at conduct unprotected by the First Amendment. We therefore conclude

section 729.5(3) does not violate McKnight’s First Amendment right of free

speech.

Id.

Appellant argues that this case, similar to Mitchell, is distinguishable from his case

because they involved a physical assault on a person, which did not occur here. Other

courts, however, have made clear that the analysis of Mitchell is not limited to bias-

motivated assaults. In Rokicki, 718 N.E.2d at 336, the defendant was convicted of a hate

crime based on the predicate offense of disorderly conduct at a restaurant, where he

directed epithets at the victim based on sexual orientation. Illinois’ hate crime statute read

as follows:

A person commits hate crime when, by reason of the actual or perceived race,

color, creed, religion, ancestry, gender, sexual orientation, physical or mental

disability, or national origin of another individual or group of individuals,

[she or] he commits assault, battery, aggravated assault, misdemeanor theft,

criminal trespass to residence, misdemeanor criminal damage to property,

criminal trespass to vehicle, criminal trespass to real property, mob action or

disorderly conduct. . . . 720 ILCS 5/12–7.1(a) (West 1994).

Id. at 336.

Rokicki argued that the statue was unconstitutional because it violated his free

speech rights. Id. After a thorough review of R.A.V. and Mitchell, the court determined

that the “statute requires conduct beyond mere expression.” Id. at 337–39. It explained:

[D]efendant is not being punished merely because he holds an unpopular

view on homosexuality or because he expressed those views loudly or in a

passionate manner. Defendant was charged with hate crime because he

allowed those beliefs to motivate unreasonable conduct. Defendant remains

free to believe what he will regarding people who are homosexual, but he

may not force his opinions on others by shouting, pounding on a counter, and

disrupting a lawful business. Defendant's conduct exceeded the bounds of

spirited debate, and the first amendment does not give him the right to harass

or terrorize anyone.

Id. at 339. Accordingly, the court held that the statute “constitutionally regulates conduct

without infringing upon free speech.” Id.

In a California case with similar facts to those here, the defendant was convicted for

a hate crime after he wrote racial slurs on the classroom door of the only African-American

teacher at a school and on a music building where multiple African-American students sat

in the morning after getting off the bus. In Re Michael M., 86 Cal. App. 4th 718, 721–22

(Cal. Ct. App. 2001). The defendant confessed to the crime and was convicted under the

following statute:

No person . . . shall knowingly deface, damage, or destroy the real or personal

property of any other person for the purpose of intimidating or interfering

with the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to the

other person by the Constitution or laws of this state or by the Constitution

or laws of the United States, because of the other person’s race[.]

Id. at 722–23 (quoting Cal. Penal Code § 422.6(b) (1998)).

Michael M. argued that the court’s finding that he violated the statute was overbroad

because the words he wrote were not a credible threat of violence, and therefore, his actions

were protected by the First Amendment. Id. at 727. The court upheld the statute because

it was “directed at regulating conduct that is unprotected by the First Amendment.” Id. at

729–30. It stated that vandalism is not protected by the First Amendment “merely because

those engaged in such conduct intend thereby to express an idea.” Id. at 729.

In State v. Nye, 943 P.2d 96, 98–99 (Mont. 1997), the defendant was convicted of

malicious intimidation or harassment relating to civil or human rights after placing bumper

stickers conveying religious views around the community. The statute provided, in

pertinent part, as follows:

A person commits the offense of malicious intimidation or harassment

when, because of another person’s . . . religion . . . , he purposely or

knowingly, with the intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy,

or offend . . . damages, destroys, or defaces any property of another or

any public property.

Id. at 99 (quoting Mont. Code Ann. § 45-5-221 (1989)).

The Supreme Court of Montana rejected Nye’s argument that this statute violated

his First Amendment rights, stating that the purpose of the statute was “not to suppress the

content of the communication,” but rather, “to prohibit conduct that violates other criminal

laws . . . and that are committed against another person because of that person’s race,

religion or national origin with the intent to intimidate, harass or annoy that person.” Id.

at 100–01. The court stated that the First Amendment protected Nye’s right to put the

bumper stickers on his property, but he “lost his First Amendment protection when he

The court also addressed, based on the statutory scheme involved, whether the

words written constituted a credible threat of violence. In re Michael M., 86 Cal. App. 4th

718, 730 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001). Although a threat of violence is not an element of the

offense under Maryland’s statute, we note that the California court held that writing the

word n****r on the door of the only African-American teacher “carried with it a violent

connotation.” Id.

coupled the message on the bumper sticker with the defacement of the property of others.”

Id. at 101.

Federal courts similarly have upheld against First Amendment challenges statutes

providing enhanced punishment for criminal conduct that is motivated by bias towards a

protected group. For example, in Ward v. Utah, 398 F.3d 1239, 1244, 1249–50 (10th Cir.

2005), the court held that a hate crime statute that “increased punishment for persons

committing certain enumerated offenses, including disorderly conduct, with the intent to

‘intimidate or terrorize’” was constitutional because it required “the commission of a

primary, conduct-based offense prior to its application,” and therefore, the statute was

aimed at conduct unprotected by the First Amendment.

II.

CR § 10-305

With this background in mind, we address appellant’s claim that CR § 10-305 is

unconstitutional. This statute, one of Maryland’s hate crimes statutes, provided at the time

of appellant’s actions:

A person may not deface, damage, or destroy, attempt to deface, damage, or

destroy, burn or attempt to burn an object on, or damage the real or personal

property connected to a building that is publicly or privately owned, leased,

or used, including a cemetery, library, meeting hall, recreation center, or

school:

(1) because a person or group of a particular race, color, religious belief,

sexual orientation, gender, disability, or national origin, or because a person

or group that is homeless, has contacts or is associated with the building; or

(2) if there is evidence that exhibits animosity against a person or group,

because of the race, color, religious beliefs, sexual orientation, gender,

disability, or national origin of that person or group or because that person or

group is homeless.

[

]

The plain language of the statute makes clear that a conviction may not be based

solely on speech. Rather, the statute regulates harmful conduct, not the content of the

speech. And the harmful conduct is proscribed in other criminal statutes. See e.g., CR §

6-301 (“A person may not willfully and maliciously destroy, injure, or deface, real or

personal property of another.”).

The Supreme Court in Mitchell, 508 U.S. at 484–86, held that bias-motivated

speech, coupled with non-verbal, proscribed conduct, is not protected by the First

Amendment. An enhanced punishment for bias-inspired conduct is permissible because

this conduct inflicts greater individual and societal harm than the same conduct absent the

special animus involved with hate crimes. Id. at 487–88.

Appellant argues that, even if CR § 10-305 is analogous to Mitchell because it

proscribes conduct, Mitchell nonetheless is distinguishable. He notes that, in Mitchell, the

statute enhanced the penalty for a crime based on the selection of the victim, whereas CR

Effective October 1, 2019, the words “or threaten” were added to the statute. It

now provides that “[a] person may not deface, damage, or destroy, attempt or threaten to

deface, damage, or destroy, burn or attempt or threaten to burn an object on, or damage the

real or personal property connected to a building . . . .”

A conviction under CR § 10-305 is a misdemeanor with a penalty of not more than

three years’ incarceration and/or a $5,000 fine. The penalty for malicious destruction of

property is not more than three years’ incarceration and/or a $2,500 fine if the damage is

more than $1,000 and 60 days and/or a fine not exceeding $500 if the damage is less than

$1,000. CR § 6-301(b)&(c).

§ 10-305 was drafted as a separate criminal offense. Although appellant is correct that

Mitchell is distinguishable in that regard, it is a distinction without a difference.

The Court of Appeals rejected a similar argument in Ayers v. State, 335 Md. 602,

629 n.6 (1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1130 (1995).

In that case, Ayers brought a First

Amendment challenge to the predecessor to CR § 10-305. Id. at 608. The Court held that,

because Ayers was not convicted under the provision of the statute that he challenged, he

did not have standing to challenge the statute. Id. at 629. The Court noted in a footnote,

however, that the constitutional analysis did not change based on whether the statute

creates a separate criminal offense rather than an enhancement of the penalty for the

underlying offense. Id. at 629 n.6. The Court noted the statement in Mitchell that “the

legislature has the primary responsibility for fixing criminal penalties. It may choose to do

so by enacting a separate criminal offense statute rather than a penalty enhancement

provision.” Id. As the Court explained, “[u]nder either approach, the penalty for the

underlying crime is enhanced.” Id. We agree. The analysis in Mitchell applies here.

Appellant may have had a First Amendment right to spray paint on his own property

the offensive words and symbols used here. Once he combined that action with a criminal

act, however, in this case defacing property of another, his criminal activity was not

protected by the First Amendment. The circuit court properly denied appellant’s motion

to dismiss.

JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT

FOR HOWARD COUNTY AFFIRMED.

COSTS TO BE PAID BY APPELLANT.

Ayers was abrogated on other grounds by State v. Jones, 466 Md. 142 (2019).