Continuing Course of Conduct Against a Child Lawyer Maryland

Md. Code, Crim. Law § 3-315 charges a pattern rather than an incident. The section reaches a continuing course of conduct with a child, defined as three or more acts that violate § 3-303, § 3-304, or § 3-307, committed over a period of 90 days or more, where the victim was under 14 at some time during the course of conduct. A conviction is a felony carrying imprisonment not exceeding 30 years.

That structure changes how a Maryland case unfolds. A charging document under § 3-315 may describe a span of months without fixing the date of any single act, because the trier of fact need only find that the required number of acts occurred and not which acts they were. The section also carries a charging bar. As to the same victim, the State generally may not charge § 3-303, § 3-304, or § 3-307 in the same proceeding unless the other violation occurred outside the charged period.

Those two features operate together. The aggregation relieves the State of pinning down individual dates, while the charging bar confines the State to a single theory for the charged window as to that child. Both features generate defense questions that a routine approach to sexual offense litigation never reaches, and both reward early attention to the calendar the charging document assumes. Law Offices Of SRIS, P.C. defends § 3-315 charges in Maryland courts, and a person facing one can reach the firm at (888) 437-7747.

On this page

How Section 3-315 Assembles One Charge From Separate Acts

The section has four moving parts. First, the underlying acts must violate § 3-303, § 3-304, or § 3-307. Rape in the first degree under § 3-303 requires vaginal intercourse or a sexual act by force or threat of force without consent, together with a statutory aggravator such as a dangerous weapon, suffocation, strangulation, disfigurement or serious physical injury, a threat of imminent death or kidnapping, aid by another person, or commission in connection with a burglary. Rape in the second degree under § 3-304 reaches vaginal intercourse or a sexual act without consent, conduct with a substantially cognitively impaired, mentally incapacitated, or physically helpless victim where the actor knows or should know of that condition, and conduct with a victim under 14 where the actor is at least 4 years older. Sexual offense in the third degree under § 3-307 reaches aggravated nonconsensual sexual contact, sexual contact with an impaired or helpless victim, sexual contact with a victim under 14 where the actor is at least 4 years older, and a sexual act or vaginal intercourse with a victim 14 or 15 where the actor is at least 21.

Second, the State must establish three or more such acts. Third, those acts must span a period of 90 days or more. Fourth, the victim must have been under 14 at some time during the course of conduct.

The section then adds the provision that shapes most of the litigation: the trier of fact need only find that the required number of acts occurred, not which acts. A verdict can rest on a finding about a pattern rather than on findings about identified events.

Two sections do not serve as predicates. Section 3-308, the fourth degree sexual offense, sits outside the list. So do § 3-305 and § 3-306, which no longer state current law; present statutes refer to them only as they existed before October 1, 2017. A charging document that borrows either of those numbers signals a problem worth raising early.

How Mr. Sris and the Firm’s Of Counsel Attorneys Handle These Cases

Mr. Sris, Owner and Founder of Law Offices Of SRIS, P.C., and the firm’s Of Counsel attorneys treat the charged period as the central document in a § 3-315 case. The State selects a window. Every element then attaches to that window: three or more acts inside it, a span of 90 days or more, and the child under 14 at some point within it. The defense builds an independent calendar from records that exist outside the account itself, including residences, school enrollment, travel, employment schedules, custody exchanges, medical visits, and device location and message data. A window that cannot hold three acts, or that closes before the child turned 14, or that spans less than the statutory period, fails on its own terms.

The charging bar receives separate attention. When the State pleads § 3-315 alongside counts under § 3-303, § 3-304, or § 3-307 for the same child, the firm examines whether those other violations are alleged to have occurred outside the charged period. That inquiry can reshape the indictment before trial rather than after.

The provision allowing a finding without identification of particular acts also directs the investigation. Because the State need not prove which acts occurred, the defense concentrates on the outer boundaries of the allegation, on the process by which the account grew from one report to three or more acts, and on the adults and interviews that stood between the first statement and the charging decision.

From there the work follows ordinary trial preparation. Mr. Sris and the firm’s Of Counsel attorneys litigate suppression questions, test each element against the proof, prepare cross-examination, and weigh sentencing exposure against the registration classifications in Md. Code, Crim. Proc. § 11-701.

Counsel for a Maryland Course of Conduct Charge

Mr. Sris founded the firm in 1997 and holds the title Owner and Founder. He is a former prosecutor. That background matters in a § 3-315 case because the charging decision itself is a strategic choice by the State, and understanding why a window was drawn where it was drawn helps counsel test it. He is admitted in Virginia, Maryland, the District of Columbia, New Jersey, and New York.

Mr. Sris and the firm’s Of Counsel attorneys concentrate in criminal defense and are experienced in Maryland felony litigation involving children. A charge carrying imprisonment not exceeding 30 years calls for early document collection, because the records that fix a calendar tend to disappear as time passes. The firm asks clients and families to preserve calendars, leases, school paperwork, phone records, and photographs at the first meeting, before any of it is discarded in the ordinary course.

The firm keeps the client informed about what the charging document alleges, what § 3-315 requires the State to establish, and where those two things diverge. Questions from parents and spouses receive the same direct answers the client receives, within the limits of confidentiality. A 24/7 phone intake lets a family reach the firm after an arrest that occurs outside regular hours. Request a consultation by calling (888) 437-7747.

Frequently Asked Questions

What must the State establish to convict under Section 3-315?

The State must establish three or more acts that violate § 3-303, § 3-304, or § 3-307, committed over a period of 90 days or more, with a victim who was under 14 at some time during the course of conduct. Each of those requirements is independent. A case that establishes fewer than three acts does not satisfy the section, and neither does a case whose entire span falls inside a period shorter than 90 days. Because the offense is a felony carrying imprisonment not exceeding 30 years, the arithmetic of the charged window deserves close review at the earliest stage of your case.

Why does the 90-day period matter so much?

The period is an element, not a description. Section 3-315 requires that the acts occur over a period of 90 days or more, which means the State’s own theory has to place the first and last alleged acts far enough apart. Charging documents in these cases often name a broad range of months, and the range is sometimes drawn from an adult’s later reconstruction rather than from anything the child said. Records that show where a client lived, worked, or traveled during the window can compress that range. When the compressed range no longer satisfies the statutory period, the element itself is in question.

Can the State charge Section 3-315 and individual counts for the same child?

Section 3-315 contains a charging bar. As to the same victim, the State generally may not charge § 3-303, § 3-304, or § 3-307 in the same proceeding unless the other violation occurred outside the charged period. When an indictment pairs a course of conduct count with individual sexual offense counts naming the same child, the first question is whether those counts are alleged to fall outside the § 3-315 window. The answer affects how many counts you face, what the jury hears, and what the sentencing exposure looks like if the case reaches that stage.

What does it mean that the finder of fact need not identify particular acts?

Section 3-315 provides that the trier of fact need only find that the required number of acts occurred, not which acts. In practice, a verdict can rest on a conclusion about a pattern rather than on conclusions about specific dated events. That provision explains why the defense in these cases focuses on the boundaries and the origin of the allegation rather than on a single date. It also explains why documentary reconstruction of the charged window carries weight: the calendar is one of the few places where the State’s theory meets facts that exist independently of the account.

What happens if the alleged conduct began before the child turned 14?

The statute requires that the victim be under 14 at some time during the course of conduct, so conduct that straddles a birthday can still fall inside the section. That makes the exact dates worth establishing rather than assuming. Age also drives the underlying sections. Section 3-304 reaches a victim under 14 where the actor is at least 4 years older, and § 3-307 reaches sexual contact with a victim under 14 on the same age-gap terms, along with a sexual act or vaginal intercourse with a victim 14 or 15 where the actor is at least 21.

This page provides general information and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Case results depend on a variety of factors unique to each case. Results may vary.

Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.