A decision to either affirm or reverse a lower court’s dismissal of charges against 23-year-old Tyler Mailloux in the hit-and-run death of 14-year-old Gavin Knpp last year rests with the state appellate court following oral arguments on March 1.
A group of protestors, including Gavin Knupp’s father, Ray Knupp. hold signs outside of Coastal Smokehouse, which is no longer in business, on Route 50 after 14-year-old Gavin was hit and killed on Gray’s Corner Road in July 2022.
Photo courtesy Campos Media
Oral arguments heard on dismissal of charges March 1
A decision to either affirm or reverse a lower court’s dismissal of charges against Tyler Mailloux in the hit-and-run of 14-year-old Gavin Knpp rests with the state appellate court following oral arguments on March 1.
By Bethany Hooper, Associate Editor
A decision to either affirm or reverse a lower court’s dismissal of charges against Tyler Mailloux in the hit-and-run of 14-year-old Gavin Knpp rests with the state appellate court following oral arguments on March 1.
The Appellate Court of Maryland heard arguments from both the prosecution and defense in the case involving Mailloux, 23, of Berlin, who was charged last year with hitting and killing Knupp, of Ocean Pines.
Last April, 17 traffic charges – including failure to immediately stop at the scene of an accident involving bodily injury and failure to immediately stop a vehicle at the scene of an accident involving death – were filed against Mailloux in the death of Knupp, who was struck and killed by a motorist in a black Mercedes while crossing Grays Corner Road on July 11, 2022. Knupp was returning to a vehicle driven by his older sister and died from injuries sustained in the collision. Mailloux allegedly fled the scene and did not return, according to charges filed.
During a motions hearing in Worcester County Circuit Court in August, Mailloux’s attorney argued the district court had “exclusive and original jurisdiction” and that the judge should either dismiss the case or transfer it to district court. The Worcester County State’s Attorney’s Office, however, argued state statute provided exceptions allowing the case to be tried in circuit court, including that the penalty for such charges exceeded three years. Following the hearing, Judge Brett Wilson granted the defense’s motion to dismiss the case, and the matter was immediately appealed.
Since that time, both the Office of the Attorney General and the Office of the Public Defender, Mailloux’s legal counsel, have filed briefs with the Appellate Court of Maryland.
During the March 1 hearing, Assistant Attorney General Zoe White asked the appellate court to reverse the circuit court’s decision, arguing that relevant statutes gave both the district and circuit courts concurrent jurisdiction over all charges filed in the case.
“This case arises out of a truly tragic situation involving the hit-and-run death of a 14-year-old boy in Worcester County,” she said. “This case, in terms of the legal issue, however, the state would submit, presents a straightforward analysis of the statutes relevant to jurisdiction.”
During her presentation to the court, White said the circuit court erred in its interpretation of state statute. She said the first eight counts against Mailloux – four felonies and four misdemeanors – fell within the concurrent jurisdiction provision.
“There’s two bases on which the circuit court had concurrent jurisdiction here,” she argued. “And it’s very clear under 4-302(f) that once the state’s attorney for Worcester County exercised her discretion to bring the charges in the circuit court, that the district court was divested of jurisdiction over the remaining nine counts as well, and exclusive jurisdiction at that point over all 17 counts of the information vested exclusively in the circuit court.”
Assistant Public Defender Celia Davis asked the appellate court to uphold the circuit court’s decision in the matter. She noted that charges should have first been filed in district court.
“The plain language of Section 4-301 is the original enabling statute for the district court of Maryland, and it sets forth exactly what cases should originate in that court,” she said. “And it sets forth in part A a general category of traffic and boating offenses, and in part B it enumerates 25 offenses, including the offenses charged in this case.”
Davis acknowledged that while there were exceptions where the case could be tried in circuit court, the district court had “starting point jurisdiction.” She said that took precedence over the provision that allowed for concurrent jurisdiction.
“I would urge this court to give plain meaning to the term ‘exclusive,’ meaning limited or dedicated, and ‘original,’ meaning that’s the court that has the power to decide the case first. That’s what those words mean …,” she said. “The term exclusive original jurisdiction does not define where the case must be tried, it defines where the case starts … In fact, the state has not brought us any examples of cases with these particular charges that started in the circuit court. They always start in the district court.”
In her rebuttal, White disputed Davis’ argument and reiterated the state’s attorney had discretion in bringing the charges in circuit court.
“Unless the court has any specific questions for me, I would submit both my briefs and ask this court to reverse the judgment of the circuit court,” she said.
With oral arguments concluded, both parties now await an opinion from the Appellate Court of Maryland.