Judiciary committee refines H.41 language on abuse of a dead human body; asks staff for revised draft

The Judiciary committee reviewed a strike-all amendment to H.41 on Jan. 30, a bill that would create a felony offense for abuse of a dead human body or its remains and revise existing Title 18 provisions.

Committee members and witnesses focused on three central items: what phrase should define the object of the offense (terms such as "corpse," "human body," and "dead human body" were discussed), how the statute should treat remains and cremated ashes, and the mental state and penalties attached to the base and aggravated offenses.

Pet Novogrowski of the Office of Legislative Council presented the draft and summary. Novogrowski said the strike-all amendment replaces the prior formulation to place most conduct in a proposed new Title 13 offense and to retain a separate Title 18 offense that would be a fine-only violation for unauthorized transport or removal. Novogrowski summarized the new subsection a as: "a person is guilty of abuse of a deceased dead human body or its remains if the person without legal authorization knowingly hides, burns, mutilates, disfigures, dismembers, or otherwise conceals or destroys a human body or its remains." He also described subsection b as the aggravated version when the actor conceals a body to hide a crime, avoid apprehension or commits specified sexualized acts against a body.

Several witnesses urged clearer definitions and careful drafting. Judge Zonay recommended placing the new offense in Title 13 chapter 81 (dead bodies, cemeteries and monuments) rather than in the homicide chapter because "it doesn't affect just homicides" and is the logical location to find statutes about dead bodies. Judge Zonay said a clear statutory choice such as "dead human body" or "dead body of a person" would help courts and practitioners and suggested explicitly excluding cremated remains if the committee wished to avoid covering urn disputes.

Marshall Hall of the Office of the Defender General said his office "does not see a need for the new crime" because the conduct is rare and is typically prosecuted with more serious offenses when it occurs. He urged caution about subsection a, which he said could sweep in family disputes over urns or other situations lacking nefarious intent, and recommended that, if the committee wants to address particular abusive acts, those acts be spelled out rather than cross-referencing sexual-assault definitions written for living persons.

Witnesses and committee counsel also debated mens rea (mental-state) language. Ben (counsel) explained distinctions drawn from the Model Penal Code between "knowingly" (awareness of the conduct) and "purposely/intentionally" (a conscious objective) and why the draft uses a lesser mens rea in subsection a and an aggravated intent in subsection b. Several presenters recommended making "knowingly" apply to the predicate phrase "without legal authorization," so the statute would read in substance that a person who "knowingly, without legal authorization, hides, burns..." would commit the base offense; aggravated conduct would add the specific intent to conceal a crime or avoid apprehension.

Committee members and witnesses also discussed statutory terminology for the acts themselves. Several speakers recommended adding the word "desecrates" to the list of acts and replacing "perpetrates" with "engages in" for clarity. On penalties, the draft originally proposed a non-aggravated maximum of five years and an aggravated term with a five-year mandatory minimum and 10-year maximum. After extended discussion about the harms of mandatory minimums and the need for sentencing flexibility (including testimony from Kimberly Guineas and other court observers), the committee agreed to remove the proposed mandatory minimum and to increase the proposed aggravated maximum to 15 years to keep the statute comparable with other aggravated-offense maxima.

At the end of the session the committee directed staff to prepare a revised draft incorporating the committee's consensus points — use "dead human body" (with an explicit exclusion of cremated remains), move the "knowingly" predicate to govern legal authorization, add "desecrates," replace "perpetrates" with "engages in," remove the statutory mandatory minimum, and set a higher aggravated maximum — and to circulate that draft for review before the next meeting. Counsel said the committee would receive the revised draft and that a fiscal note would be prepared.

Committee members stressed they were aiming to target "nefarious" acts (for example, acts done to conceal a crime or for sexualized gratification) while avoiding unintended consequences for authorized professionals (medical examiners, morticians) or family disputes over remains.

The committee did not take a formal recorded vote on H.41 during the Jan. 30 hearing; members instructed counsel to circulate a new draft for consideration on the next meeting agenda.