Hammond v. State

Andre Hammond v. State of Maryland, No. 5, September Term, 2026 SEX OFFENDER REGISTRY – “KNOWINGLY” FAIL TO REGISTER – MD. CODE ANN., CRIM. PROC. (2001, 2025 REPL VOL.) § 11-721(a) – Supreme Court of Maryland held that forgetting to register is not valid defense to charge of knowingly failing to register under Md. Code Ann., Crim. Proc. (2001, 2025 Repl. Vol.) (“CP”) § 11- 721(a). Generally, to establish violation of CP § 11-721(a), State need only prove that person had notice of duty or obligation to register and failed to do so. Such proof is sufficient to establish that person who fails to register “knowingly” failed to do so. However, evidence of involuntarily induced medically diagnosed condition, such as Alzheimer’s disease, dementia, or other condition, that results in memory or cognitive deficiencies that deprive person of ability to act with knowledge, awareness, or consciousness of person’s obligations under Maryland Sex Offender Registration Act may serve as defense to charge of knowing failure to register. Condition that merely affects memory or makes it more difficult to remember is not sufficient. In addition, lack of notice of obligation to register or impossibility, i.e., uncontrollable external circumstances that prevent compliance, such as being hospitalized, may serve as defense. Supreme Court concluded that trial court did not err in finding there is distinction between forgetting to register and lacking knowledge of obligation to register, and in determining that forgetting to register is not valid defense to charge of knowingly failing to register under CP § 11-721(a).  Circuit Court for Charles County Case No. C-08-CR-23-000605 Argued: September 4, 2026 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MARYLAND No. 5 September Term, 2026 ______________________________________ ANDRE HAMMOND v. STATE OF MARYLAND ______________________________________ Fader, C.J. Watts Booth Biran Gould Eaves Killough, JJ. ______________________________________ Opinion by Watts, J. ______________________________________ Filed: October 26, 2026 Pursuant to the Maryland Uniform Electronic Legal Materials Act (§§ 10-1601 et seq. of the State Government Article) this document is authentic. 2026.10.26 13:14:06 -04'00' Gregory Hilton, Clerk  The Maryland Sex Offender Registration Act (“MSORA”), Md. Code Ann., Crim. Proc. (2001, 2025 Repl. Vol.) (“CP”) §§ 11-701 to 11-727, requires that people who are convicted of certain sex offenses “register with the person’s supervising authority[,]” CP § 11-704(a).1 This is colloquially referred to as the requirement to register as a sex offender. Generally, when a person who is required to register is not incarcerated, the supervising authority will be the local law enforcement unit in the jurisdiction in which the person lives. See CP § 11-701(n)(8).2 When a person who is required to register fails to do so, the person may be charged with and convicted of the offense of knowingly failing to register under CP § 11-721. This case concerns such a conviction. In this case, at trial, Andre Hammond, Petitioner, a person who incontestably has been convicted of a sex offense and is required 1 The Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services (“the Department”) is required to “keep a central registry of registrants and a listing of juvenile sex offenders[.]” CP § 11-713(2). Registrants are required to periodically file registration statements containing information about themselves, such as their contact information, employment and school details, and information about their physical appearance. See CP § 11-706(a). 2 Depending on a person’s status, the designated supervising authority may vary. For example, the Director of Parole and Probation is the supervising authority for individuals who are required to register and are under the supervision of the Division of Parole and Probation, see CP § 11-701(n)(9), and the Secretary of the Department is the supervising authority for individuals who are in Maryland under the terms and conditions of the Interstate Compact for Adult Offender Supervision, i.e., who are offenders who move into Maryland from another jurisdiction and are required to register, see CP § 11-701(n)(7). Under the Code of Maryland Regulations (“COMAR”), Title 12, Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services, Subtitle 6, Sex Offender Registration, Chapter 1, Administration of Sex Offender Registration, the Secretary of the Department “may delegate the Secretary’s duties as a supervising authority to an agency of the Department or a local law enforcement unit[.]” COMAR 12.06.01.06A. COMAR 12.06.01.07A provides a list of local law enforcement units designated by resolution of each county governing body to serve as supervising authorities. to register in Maryland with a supervising authority, asserted the defense that he forgot to do so. As a matter of first impression, we must determine whether forgetting to register can serve as a valid defense against the charge of knowingly failing to register in violation of CP § 11-721. Mr. Hammond was convicted of sex offenses in the District of Columbia that required him to register as a Tier I sex offender when he moved to Maryland. Pursuant to CP § 11-707(a), when someone has been convicted of a sexual offense that requires registration, the person is required by law to register in person every three or six months depending on what tier of registration the person’s conviction mandates during the term of the person’s registration requirement. As a Tier I sex offender, Mr. Hammond was required to register in person every six months. In February 2023, Mr. Hammond registered in Charles County, Maryland. At that time, Mr. Hammond was given notice that he was required to register next in person in Charles County on August 1, 2023. Mr. Hammond failed to register as required on August 1, 2023. Mr. Hammond was subsequently indicted in the Circuit Court for Charles County with the offense of knowingly failing to register in violation of CP § 11-721. At trial, Mr. Hammond testified that he “forgot” to register due to circumstances involving depression and the deaths of multiple family members. The State of Maryland, Respondent, contended that forgetting cannot serve as a valid defense to the charge of “knowingly” failing to register under CP § 11-721(a). The circuit court rejected Mr. Hammond’s defense and found that it was undisputed that Mr. Hammond knew he had to register and did not do so. The circuit court explained that there is a distinction between -2- not knowing and forgetting, and that “I forgot doesn’t mean you didn’t know[.]” The circuit court found Mr. Hammond guilty of knowingly failing to register as a sex offender, and imposed a suspended sentence with a period of probation. Mr. Hammond appealed. In a reported opinion, the Appellate Court of Maryland affirmed the circuit court’s judgment. See Hammond v. State, 268 Md. App. 477, 483, 351 A.3d 62, 65 (2026). The Appellate Court concluded that the evidence at trial “established that Mr. Hammond was on notice of his duty to register” and that he “‘knowingly’ failed to register under CP § 11-721(a).” Id. at 507, 351 A.3d at 79. The Appellate Court considered the definition of the word “knowingly,” its treatment by courts in other jurisdictions with similar statutes, and the purpose of MSORA. See id. at 491-501, 351 A.3d at 70-75. The Appellate Court concluded that: (1) prior notice of the obligation to register is sufficient to establish the knowledge required for conviction of knowingly failing to register; (2) the mens rea necessary for conviction of knowingly failing to register under CP § 11-721(a) is not negated by forgetting; and (3) mitigation at sentencing can be appropriate relief where extenuating circumstances impede a person from fulfilling the obligation to register. See id. at 507, 351 A.3d at 79. The Appellate Court stated that to hold that “I forgot” is a complete defense for knowingly failing to register would “eviscerate the entire purpose of the registration statute.” Id. at 507, 351 A.3d at 79. Mr. Hammond filed in this Court a petition for writ of certiorari, which we granted. See Hammond v. State, 494 Md. 174, 357 A.3d 780 (2026). In this Court, Mr. Hammond contends that the word “knowingly” as used in CP § 11-721(a) requires that a registrant’s knowledge of the duty to register be contemporaneous -3- with the failure to register and that where a person has forgotten the obligation to register, that requirement is not met. The State counters that, as both the circuit court and Appellate Court found, the “knowingly” element of the failure to register offense is satisfied where evidence demonstrates that a person had notice of the obligation to register and failed to do so. The State asserts that, even if this Court were to conclude that forgetfulness can negate the mens rea necessary for a conviction under CP § 11-721(a), the case should be remanded to the circuit court because, according to the State, the circuit court did not make a finding that Mr. Hammond genuinely forgot to register. We hold that forgetting is not a valid defense to the charge of knowingly failing to register under CP § 11-721(a). Generally, to establish a violation of CP § 11-721(a), the State need only prove that a person had notice of the duty or obligation to register and failed to do so. Such proof is sufficient to establish that a person who fails to register “knowingly” failed to do so. We conclude, however, that evidence of an involuntarily induced medically diagnosed condition, such as late stage Alzheimer’s disease, late stage dementia, or other medical condition, that results in memory or cognitive deficiencies that deprive an individual of the ability to act with knowledge, awareness, or consciousness of the individual’s obligations under MSORA may serve as a defense to the charge of knowingly failing to register. A condition that merely affects memory or makes it more difficult to remember is not sufficient. Ordinarily, evidence of such a medical condition would be the subject of expert evidence to establish the condition and resulting memory deficit depriving the individual of the ability to act with knowledge, awareness, or consciousness of the person’s obligation. In addition, we conclude that a lack of notice of -4- the obligation to register or impossibility, i.e., uncontrollable external circumstances that prevent compliance with the obligation, such as being unexpectedly hospitalized, may serve as a defense. BACKGROUND On August 26, 2009, and February 6, 2018, Mr. Hammond was convicted of misdemeanor sexual abuse and second-degree child sexual abuse under Sections 22-3006 and 22-3009 of the D.C. Code, respectively, in the District of Columbia. Beginning in 2009, Mr. Hammond was required to register as a sex offender and over the years registered in five different jurisdictions—the District of Columbia; Falls Church, Virginia; Arlington, Virginia; Prince George’s County, Maryland; and Charles County, Maryland. In June 2016, Mr. Hammond pleaded guilty in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to failing to register as a sex offender. When Mr. Hammond moved to Maryland, he was classified as a Tier I sex offender and required to report to the appropriate supervising authority and register every six months. Initially, Mr. Hammond lived with his sister in Prince George’s County. In December 2022, Mr. Hammond and his sister moved from Prince George’s County to Charles County. On February 9, 2023, Mr. Hammond registered for the first time in Charles County. When Mr. Hammond registered in February 2023, he received written notice that he would need to register again on August 1, 2023, and that his registration would expire on August 9, 2023. On August 1, 2023, Mr. Hammond failed to register. On August 14, 2023, Mr. Hammond was charged in the District Court of Maryland for Charles County with -5- knowingly failing to register as a Tier I sex offender in violation of CP § 11-721 and an arrest warrant was issued. On September 8, 2023, Mr. Hammond was indicted in the circuit court for knowingly failing to register in violation of CP § 11-721. Mr. Hammond waived his right to a jury trial and elected to have a bench trial. Bench Trial At a bench trial conducted on April 30, 2024, as the sole witness for the State, Detective Nina Garner of the Criminal Investigations Division, Special Victims Unit, of the Charles County Sheriff’s Office, testified that, at the time of trial, she had been assigned to the Division for approximately six years and that her job duties included managing the sex offender registry in Charles County. On direct examination, Detective Garner testified that it was her responsibility “to register the offenders, make sure that they remain compliant; and if they don’t, charge them.” When asked what usually occurs during a registration meeting, Detective Garner described the process in Charles County as one that includes providing a person who is registering with a “requirements form” that sets forth the next scheduled registration date and time. Detective Garner testified as follows: [T]hey’ll come in to an office downstairs in the lobby and they’ll sit across from me. I take their photograph, which is updated later into a database. . . . Their registration form which has all their demographic, conviction information, offense date, address, employment, vehicles, Internet identifier, social media accounts, Email addresses, everything that they’re required to report to the registry is on that form. They go over the form, attest that it’s true and accurate. They’ll sign and date the front page. If they have any changes, obviously we make those, and that is written on the form. Like I said, once they verify that everything is true and accurate, they sign and date and then I also write my name and date. . . . They initial and date, I initial and date, right there together. The last page is a requirements form, which is an outline of all the requirements through the State sex offender registry that they are required to abide by[.] . . . And then it also has their next scheduled -6-  registration date and time. (Paragraph breaks omitted). Detective Garner testified that, in addition to information about the next scheduled registration date and time, the requirements form contains her contact information, including her email address, phone number, and name, and the address for the Sheriff’s Office where registrations take place. Detective Garner testified that, in Charles County, registrations typically occur “on the first and third Tuesday of every month[.]” According to Detective Garner, if a registrant needs to reschedule a registration appointment, the registrant can contact her by phone or email. In such a situation, the registration date would be rescheduled for a later time. Detective Garner testified that, on February 9, 2023, Mr. Hammond registered in Charles County. Detective Garner testified that Mr. Hammond registered as a Tier I sex offender and was required to register every six months for a term of either 10 or 15 years. Detective Garner testified that the requirements form that both she and Mr. Hammond signed on February 9, 2023, stated that his next registration date was August 1, 2023.3 The circuit court admitted into evidence as State’s Exhibit 3 a form titled “Department of Public Safety & Correctional Services Maryland Online Sex Offender Registration[,]” the last two pages of which is a form titled “Notice of Sexual Offender Registration Requirements[.]” Detective Garner testified that August 9, 2023, was the date falling six months after 3 February 9, 2023, and was the expiration date for Mr. Hammond’s registration. Detective Garner explained that because in Charles County registration dates are scheduled for the first and third Tuesdays in a month, Mr. Hammond’s registration appointment was scheduled for the first Tuesday of the month of August 2023, which was August 1. -7- On the requirements form, the date “8/1/2023” and time “0810” are written in the spaces for “Scheduled Registration Date” and “Time.” The requirements form is signed by both Mr. Hammond and Detective Garner and dated February 9, 2023. Detective Garner testified that Mr. Hammond “failed to show” for registration on August 1, 2023, and that she did not receive any calls or emails from him that day. Detective Garner testified that she filed a warrant for Mr. Hammond’s arrest two weeks after he missed the August 1, 2023 registration appointment, during which time she had received no communication from him. Detective Garner testified that she did not hear from Mr. Hammond until he called her after the warrant had been issued. Detective Garner testified that, during the call, Mr. Hammond was upset and wanted the warrant recalled, and that she advised him to contact an attorney. On cross-examination, Detective Garner testified that, on August 16, 2023, after the warrant had been issued, Mr. Hammond called and emailed her, telling her that the registration date had “slipped his mind” and that he had deaths in the family and mental health issues. The following colloquy occurred with respect to Detective Garner’s interactions with Mr. Hammond on August 16, 2023: [DEFENSE COUNSEL:] So he called at around 3:11, 3:13, and then sent an Email at 5, around 5? [DETECTIVE GARNER:] Yes. [DEFENSE COUNSEL:] On the 16th? [DETECTIVE GARNER:] Yes. [DEFENSE COUNSEL:] When he found out he had that warrant? -8-  [DETECTIVE GARNER:] Yes. [DEFENSE COUNSEL:] And he informed you that he had all those deaths in the family? [DETECTIVE GARNER:] Yes. [DEFENSE COUNSEL:] And his mental health, he was mentally drained at that point, correct? [DETECTIVE GARNER:] I can’t attest to his mental status, but -- [DEFENSE COUNSEL:] Okay, but he’s telling you that, literally? [DETECTIVE GARNER:] He, he’s saying he had a death in the family and mental health, yes. [DEFENSE COUNSEL:] And he’s pleading to register, to reschedule the registration? *** [DETECTIVE GARNER:] Yes, he want[ed] to come in to register. On cross-examination, Detective Garner testified that she did not know that in other jurisdictions reminders of registration dates are sent by certified mail, and that neither she nor her assistant sent Mr. Hammond a “courtesy reminder” of his registration date. Detective Garner testified that Mr. Hammond’s registration “date was highlighted and provided to him on his requirements form.” Detective Garner testified that she was unaware of any attempt by Mr. Hammond to register before the warrant had been issued, and stated that, if he had come to the Sherriff’s Office after the warrant was issued, he would have been arrested. As a witness for the defense, Elizabeth Holt, Mr. Hammond’s sister, testified that Mr. Hammond resides with her and her husband in Charles County. Ms. Holt testified that, -9- before moving to Charles County, Mr. Hammond had lived with her in Prince George’s County. According to Ms. Holt, when they lived in Prince George’s County, detectives would call when Mr. Hammond “had to register and remind him of his registration.” Ms. Holt testified that when they moved to Charles County, Mr. Hammond changed his registration to Charles County and that no one from the Charles County Sheriff’s office came to her house to verify Mr. Hammond’s address or discuss his living arrangements. Ms. Holt testified that Mr. Hammond “suffer[s] from depression” and that he has been getting treatment for it for “several years[.]” Ms. Holt testified that, between February 2023 and August 2023, her stepfather died, and a cousin, with whom she and Mr. Hammond were “more like sisters and brothers than cousins[,]” died by suicide. Ms. Holt explained that their cousin died on July 17, 2023, and the funeral was on August 1, 2023. Ms. Holt testified that Mr. Hammond was “distraught” by their cousin’s death, “crying, not eating, not sleeping well.” According to Ms. Holt, between June 2023 and August 1, 2023, there were eight deaths in the family and Mr. Hammond handled them “[p]retty bad.” Ms. Holt testified that Mr. Hammond’s “medication had to be adjusted” and that he had difficulty sleeping. Ms. Holt testified that, during that time, Mr. Hammond’s “state of mind just wasn’t there.” Ms. Holt testified that when detectives came to her house to serve the warrant, Mr. Hammond was at work, so she told him about the warrant when he came home. According to Ms. Holt, upon learning of the warrant for his arrest, Mr. Hammond “was distraught” that “he forgot[,]” and “was so upset, he said oh, my God, I can’t believe I forgot, oh, my God, let me call the lady, let me call the lady.” Ms. Holt testified that Mr. Hammond called - 10 - and emailed Detective Garner, who was “nonchalant” and told him to get a lawyer. According to Ms. Holt, Mr. Hammond went and attempted to register but was turned away. When asked about Mr. Hammond’s previous failure to register in 2016, Ms. Holt stated that occurred because “[p]eople literally w[ere] trying to kill [him]” and indicated that it was a result of his name being seen on a sex offender registry. On his own behalf, Mr. Hammond testified that he had registered in four different locations before registering in Charles County and that he understands the importance of registering and following applicable policies. Mr. Hammond acknowledged that he was required to register in August of 2023 in Charles County. Mr. Hammond’s counsel asked him what happened, and Mr. Hammond testified: “I forgot.” When asked “[w]hat was going on in [his] life around August 2023 that caused [him] to forget[,]” the following colloquy occurred: [MR. HAMMOND:] I was severely going through mental health problems of depression that I was dealing with family deaths, step-father, two murder cases of my two nephews, two murder cases of my cousin, then another cousin that was dealing with mental health committed suicide that I was close to very dearly, so. [DEFENSE COUNSEL:] So I’m not going to go into detail about that because I saw you all get emotional when you go into detail, but you were close with the cousin that [died by] suicide, correct? [MR. HAMMOND:] I was very close, she was like a second mom. [DEFENSE COUNSEL:] And to reiterate, she was laid to rest on August 1st? [MR. HAMMOND:] Yes, she was. [DEFENSE COUNSEL:] At what point did you remember to register? [MR. HAMMOND:] I don’t recall. - 11 -  Mr. Hammond testified that after his sister told him the “police came to the house[,]” he started to take “drastic measures[,]” which included contacting the detective (the officer who came to the house) who told him what the warrant was about and advised him to contact Detective Garner. Mr. Hammond testified that, after he learned of the warrant, he called Detective Garner and “advised her [of] stuff [he] was going through with family and [his] mental health and tr[ied] to make an appointment to register on the registry.” According to Mr. Hammond, Detective Garner was not “receptive” to the phone conversation and hung up on him; so, he sent her an email. The circuit court admitted into evidence as Defense Exhibit 3 an email from Mr. Hammond to Detective Garner dated August 16, 2023, at 5:12 p.m., in which Mr. Hammond stated: This Andre Hammond I would like to setup a appointment to Update or re register. Again I had death in my family that I have proof of, my mental health was not a good and honestly it slipped my mind. I was going call you today to make to see you but received the warrant. It was a human error I been going thru a lot physically and mentally and been grieving, I hope we can resolve this matter in the spirit of understanding, and second chances. I have no new changes of my registry all information is still the same. Also I do apologize for my mental health breakdown on the phone with you. Just was shocked and going thru a lot of depression. Please let me know a date I can come in to register also I will be going in tomorrow to the courts to try to resolve. Thanks again[.] Mr. Hammond testified that he did not receive a reply to the email; so, he contacted his probation officer and the Charles County State’s Attorney’s Office. Mr. Hammond testified that, in the District of Columbia, Alexandria and Fairfax in - 12 - Virginia, and Prince George’s County, he had been sent a letter advising him that his registration date or anniversary was coming up and that he could register either in person or by mail. According to Mr. Hammond, Prince George’s County both sent a letter and called. Mr. Hammond testified that, in 2016, he failed to register in the District of Columbia “[b]ecause [he] was being shot at and being threatened by [his] child’s mother’s fiancee [sic].” According to Mr. Hammond, he asked that his registration in Prince George’s County and the District of Columbia be shielded because he was “in fear for [his] life.” With respect to his initial registration in Charles County, Mr. Hammond testified that he had an appointment for February 8, 2023, but that he called Detective Garner on that date because his stepfather had “just passed away and [he] wanted to reschedule [his] registration date.” Mr. Hammond testified that Detective Garner told him to come in the next day.4 When asked again by his attorney to explain what happened in August of 2023, Mr. Hammond testified: “I was mentally messed up and I end[ed] up forgetting to register, I was dealing with my own mental health issues on top of tons of death that was surrounding me.” Mr. Hammond’s attorney replied “[o]kay” and, unprompted, Mr. Hammond testified: “I forgot.” Mr. Hammond testified that after he was arrested and released, he went to According to Mr. Hammond, the registration requirements form that he was given 4 at his initial visit on February 9, 2023, differed from the one entered into evidence as State’s Exhibit 3. Mr. Hammond testified that, among other things, Detective Garner refused to sign his copy of the form, and the registration expiration date on his copy is different than the August 9, 2023 date on State’s Exhibit 3. Mr. Hammond did not dispute that the requirements form stated that his next registration date was August 1, 2023. - 13 - register and the Sheriff’s Office “tried to refuse” him. According to Mr. Hammond, he stayed at the office until someone was sent out “to register [him]. [He] didn’t leave.” On cross-examination, Mr. Hammond acknowledged that he did not contact Detective Garner until August 16, 2023. On redirect, Mr. Hammond stated that the reason he did not contact Detective Garner between August 1 and 15, 2023, was because he “just forgot, literally.” The circuit court found Mr. Hammond guilty of knowingly failing to register, concluding that he knew he had to register, but did not do so. The circuit court ruled as follows: All right. I’ve, as I was saying, I’ve reviewed the exhibits, I heard testimony, I’ve reviewed the statute, looked at the case law that was cited by your attorney and some others. There are really no facts in dispute in this case, sir. Both sides agree that you were required to register since 2009. That’s not in dispute. That you’ve been registering every six months since 2009, except once in 2016, which you were convicted for, and once in 2023, which we’re here for today. The Defense in this case is that Mr. Hammond forgot his date to re- register in August of 2023. He had moved to Charles County from Prince George’s County in December of 2022, his sister testified to that. Lived with her. He registered in Charles County in February of 2023. You were given a report date at the time you registered in, Mr. Hammond registered in February of 2023 on the next six months requirement and that was August 1st, 2023. Mr. Hammond didn’t show up for his appointment because he had a funeral and, in his words, it slipped his mind. I believe that was in the Email to the Detective, and on the stand he stated I forgot. In closing [defense counsel] stated, and there was a lot going on in Mr. Hammond’s life at the time and his sister testified to it, he testified to it, there was a lot going on, and [defense counsel] stated that maybe if not a lot going on he would have remembered. Or the flip side of that is maybe he wouldn’t have remembered at all, I don’t know, if the office hadn’t taken the responsibility that it took, the Charles County Sheriff’s Office in filing the charges. - 14 -  There are things that law enforcement could have done differently to assist Mr. Hammond to remind him and there are steps that Mr. Hammond could have taken to make sure he remembered, which he obviously -- which if he did they obviously didn’t work in this case because of the circumstances. The Court’s not in a position to require any law enforcement agency to take steps that are not required and mandated by the law; nor is it the role of the Court to tell the Defendant how best it is for him in an individual capacity to remember. The question in this case is did Mr. Hammond knowingly fail to register. That’s the defense. It’s undisputed that he knew he had to register. Undisputed he was given the date and time to do that. Undisputed he knew how to reschedule his appointment since he had done that in February. I forgot doesn’t mean you didn’t know, it simply means I forgot. There’s a distinction between not knowing and [] forgetting. After finding Mr. Hammond guilty of knowingly failing to register, the circuit court sentenced Mr. Hammond to five years’ imprisonment, all suspended, with five years of unsupervised probation.5 On May 26, 2024, Mr. Hammond timely filed a notice of appeal. Opinion of the Appellate Court of Maryland On January 30, 2026, the Appellate Court of Maryland affirmed the circuit court’s judgment and concluded that Mr. Hammond “knowingly” failed to register as required in violation of CP § 11-721(a). See Hammond, 268 Md. App. at 483, 507, 351 A.3d at 65, 79. The Appellate Court began its analysis by reviewing the text of CP § 11-721(a). See id. at 491, 351 A.3d at 70. The Appellate Court stated that the term “knowingly” in CP § 5 A person who violates CP § 11-721(a) “for a first offense, is guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction is subject to imprisonment not exceeding 3 years or a fine not exceeding $5,000 or both” and “for a second or subsequent offense, is guilty of a felony and on conviction is subject to imprisonment not exceeding 5 years or a fine not exceeding $10,000 or both.” CP § 11-721(b). Mr. Hammond was able to receive a five-year suspended sentence because he had previously been convicted of failing to register. - 15 - 11-721(a) had previously been defined as meaning “that the registrant acts with knowledge, i.e., that he knows that he must register as a sex offender but does not do so” and that the “definition suggests that prior notice is sufficient to establish knowledge under CP § 11- 721(a).” Id. at 491, 351 A.3d at 70 (citing Correll v. State, 215 Md. App. 483, 504-05, 81 A.3d 600, 612 (2013)). The Appellate Court explained that because the term “knowingly” is not expressly defined in CP § 11-721(a) or in any other statute in the Criminal Procedure Article, it would look to statutes in the Criminal Law Article, the Model Penal Code, case law of the Supreme Court of the United States, and the dictionary for definitions of the term. See id. at 491-93, 351 A.3d at 70-71. The Appellate Court explained that definitions from these sources demonstrate that “you do not necessarily need to know that you violated CP § 11- 721, just that you were supposed to register (aware of your duty) and did not.” Id. at 494, 351 A.3d at 71 (citations omitted). The Appellate Court observed that this Court has stated “that the overarching goal of the sex offender registration statute [is] to protect the public[,]” and that it kept this purpose in mind as it analyzed the definition of “knowingly.” Id. at 496, 351 A.3d at 73 (citation modified). The Appellate Court explained that, although MSORA has been amended from time to time over the years since it was first enacted, “[n]otably, [] since its inclusion” in the prior version of the statute in 1995, “the word ‘knowingly’ as used in CP § 11-721(a) has remained undefined and unchallenged by any proposed amendment.” Id. at 496-97, 351 A.3d at 73. The Appellate Court rejected Mr. Hammond’s argument that, because of the lack of definition of the term “knowingly” in MSORA, the statute is - 16 - ambiguous and the rule of lenity should apply. See id. at 497, 351 A.3d at 73. The Appellate Court described as instructive the recent federal decision of United States v. Kokinda, 146 F.4th 405 (4th Cir. 2025), in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit rejected an invitation to apply the rule of lenity in construing the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (“SORNA”). See Hammond, 268 Md. App. at 497, 351 A.3d at 73. Construing MSORA like its federal counterpart, SORNA, the Appellate Court concluded that there was “insufficient ambiguity in MSORA” to rise to “the level of grievousness mandating application of the rule of lenity[.]” Id. at 498, 351 A.3d at 74. The Appellate Court examined how courts in other jurisdictions have construed the word “knowingly” in their respective sex offender registration statutes. See id. at 498, 351 A.3d at 74. The Appellate Court determined that case law from other jurisdictions demonstrates that establishing that a person had prior notice of the duty to register is sufficient to satisfy the “knowingly” element of CP § 11-721(a) and that “[a] prior conviction for knowingly failing to register can also form a basis from which knowledge can be inferred.” Id. at 498-99, 351 A.3d at 74-75 (citation modified). The Appellate Court stated that, by requiring that the failure to register be knowing, the General Assembly “did not intend to open the floodgates and excuse all sex offenders struggling with depression from their obligation to timely register” nor did the General Assembly intend “to excuse anyone who merely says, ‘oops, I forgot[.]’” Id. at 503, 351 A.3d at 77. The Appellate Court declined to carve out an exception for a registrant who forgets to register, especially where rescheduling registration in cases of extenuating - 17 - circumstances is an option, because such an exception “would not adhere to the [General Assembly’s] goal of encouraging compliance to keep the public informed and safe.” Id. at 505, 351 A.3d at 78. The Appellate Court concluded that, in this case, “Mr. Hammond knew of his obligation to register, knew how to reschedule his appointment, yet failed to do either[,]” and that “Mr. Hammond’s mistake, though unfortunate, did not negate his mens rea.” Id. at 505, 351 A.3d at 78.6 Petition for a Writ of Certiorari On March 17, 2026, Mr. Hammond petitioned for a writ of certiorari, raising the following two issues: 1. As a matter of first impression, can forgetting to register for the Maryland sex offender registry serve as a defense to a charge of “knowingly” failing to register under [CP] § 11-721(a) and, if so, under what circumstances? 2. Did the trial court err in convicting [Mr. Hammond] of knowingly failing to register after finding as a fact that [Mr. Hammond] forgot to register? On May 22, 2026, we granted the petition. See Hammond, 494 Md. 174, 357 A.3d 780. DISCUSSION7 A. Standard of Review “Statutory interpretation is a question of law, and thus, we review the meaning of a 6 The Appellate Court agreed with the State “that a trial court is permitted to consider a defendant’s forgetfulness as mitigation at sentencing, as the [circuit] court did here.” Hammond, 268 Md. App. at 505, 351 A.3d at 78. The Appellate Court determined that the circuit court “appropriately tailored Mr. Hammond’s sentence to account for past and future mental health challenges that impede upon Mr. Hammond’s ability to comply with CP § 11-721.” Id. at 506, 351 A.3d at 79. 7 Given the interrelated nature of the questions pres