|SOL: + 7 years from majority
1. Md. COURTS AND JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS Code Ann. § 5-117 (b)
a. § 5-117. Actions arising from alleged sexual abuse (a) “Sexual abuse” defined. — In this section, “sexual abuse” has the meaning stated in § 5-701 of the Family Law Article. (b) Limitations period. An action for damages arising out of an alleged incident or incidents of sexual abuse that occurred while the victim was a minor shall be filed within 7 years of the date that the victim attains the age of majority.
2. Md. FAMILY LAW Code Ann. § 5-701 (b)(1)-(2) Abuse. — “Abuse” means: (1) the physical or mental injury of a child by any parent or other person who has permanent or temporary care or custody or responsibility for supervision of a child, or by any household or family member, under circumstances that indicate that the child’s health or welfare is harmed or at substantial risk of being harmed; or (2) sexual abuse of a child, whether physical injuries are sustained or not.
a. Md. COURTS AND JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS Code Ann. § 3-801 (x)(1)(i)-(ii) “Sexual abuse (1) “Sexual abuse” means an act that involves sexual molestation or sexual exploitation of a child by: (i) A parent or other individual who has permanent or temporary care or custody or responsibility for supervision of the child; or (ii) A household or family member.”
1. Majority, yes. Age 18.
a. Md. COURTS AND JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS Code Ann. § 5-117 (b) )“within 7 years of the date that the victim attains the age of majority.”)
b. Md. COURTS AND JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS Code Ann. § 3-801(d) Adult. — “Adult” means an individual who is at least 18 years old.
c. Md. COURTS AND JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS Code Ann. § 3-801 (e) Child. — “Child” means an individual under the age of 18 years.
2. Discovery, NO.
a. Roe v. Doe, 193 Md. App. 558, 566, 998 A.2d 383, 388 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2010)(noting failure to pass statutory discovery rule by legislature along with most recent extension, stating “[w]hen introduced as Senate Bill 68, Chapter 360 included two features that did not survive to final passage. The Bill would have made the statute of limitations twelve years following the later of the victim’s twenty-first birthday or the victim’s discovery that the alleged abuse was actionable.”) (As enacted Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. §5-117 reads “shall be filed within 7 years of the date that the victim attains the age of majority.”)
b. Doe v. Maskell, 342 Md. 684, 695, 679 A.2d 1087, 1092 (Md. 1996) (“After reviewing the arguments on both sides of the issue, we are unconvinced that repression exists as a phenomenon separate and apart from the normal process of forgetting. Because we find these two processes to be indistinguishable scientifically, it follows that they should be treated the same legally. Therefore we hold that the mental process of repression of memories of past sexual abuse does not activate the discovery rule. The plaintiffs’ suits are thus barred by the statute of limitations. If the General Assembly should wish to rewrite the law, that is its prerogative and responsibility.”)
c. Doe v. Archdiocese of Washington, 114 Md. App. 169, 183, 689 A.2d 634, 641-642, 1997 Md. App. LEXIS 39, 21-22 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1997) (“Appellant also urges us to analogize his case to the latent disease line of cases, for which the statute of limitations does not accrue until the plaintiff knew or reasonably should have known of the nature and cause of the harm. He bases this assertion on his claim that he did not know of the nature of the harm until his marriage ‘fell apart’ in 1994. See Pennwalt Corp., 314 Md. at 453; Pierce v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 296 Md. 656, 663, 464 A.2d 1020 (1983). We find the latent disease cases inapposite. Application of the discovery rule in latent disease cases is premised on the idea that a disease in its latent stage is ‘unknown and inherently unknowable.’ Wilson v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 684 F.2d 111, 117, 221 U.S. App. D.C. 337 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (quoting Urie v. Thompson, 337 U.S. 163, 169, 93 L. Ed. 1282, 69 S. Ct. 1018 (1949)); see also Harig v. Johns-Manville Products Corp., 284 Md. 70, 80, 394 A.2d 299 (1978) (stating that latent disease is “undiscoverable”). The harm resulting from the intentional tort of sexual battery is simply not ‘inherently unknowable’ to a reasonable person.”)
|No SOL for felonies.
Maryland has no time limitation for prosecutions of felonies. Clark v. State, 774 A.2d 1136, n.8 (Md. 2001) (“Maryland has no statute of limitations on felonies or penitentiary misdemeanors beyond that imposed by the life of the offender.”)
Most sexual offenses are classified as felonies. Md. Code Ann., Crim. Law §§ 3-301 to -324.