Opinion ID: 2362987
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Consistency with the Statute

Text: Title 3, subtitle 9 of the Correctional Services Article sets forth the procedures for executing a sentence of death. CS § 3-905(a) states: The manner of inflicting the punishment of death shall be the continuous intravenous administration of a lethal quantity of an ultrashort-acting barbiturate or other similar drug in combination with a chemical paralytic agent until a licensed physician pronounces death according to accepted standards of medical practice. That provision is supplemented by CS § 3-906, which directs the Commissioner of Correction to provide a suitable and efficient place, enclosed from public view, in which to carry out an execution, to provide all of the materials necessary to perform the execution, and to select trained individuals to administer the lethal injection. Section 3-906(c) provides that an individual who administers the paralytic agent and lethal injection need not be a health care practitioner. Those provisions were enacted by the General Assembly in 1994. See 1994 Md. Laws, ch. 5. After enactment of Ch. 5, DOC adopted an Execution Operations Manual (EOM) to govern virtually all aspects of implementing the death sentence by lethal injection. The EOM specifies the logistics, the responsibilities of various DOC officials and personnel, pre-execution procedures commencing upon receipt of a warrant of execution, post execution procedures, the responsibilities of a special unit to provide security for inmates awaiting execution, and the responsibilities of a command center. None of those procedures are challenged by Evans. The EOM defines the term Lethal Injection as [t]he administration of a lethal quantity of an ultrashort-acting barbiturate or other similar drug in combination with a chemical paralytic agent until a licensed physician pronounces death according to accepted standards of medical practice. That definition tracks the statutory language except that it omits the word continuous preceding administration. Attached to, and presumably a part of, the EOM is a Lethal Injection Checklist, which prescribes in considerable detail the actual contents of the lethal concoction and the method of injecting it. That is the subject of Evans's complaint. The Checklist specifies that the injection is to consist of (1) 120 cc/3 grams of sodium pentothal in two 60 cc syringes, (2) 50 cc/50mEq. of pancuronium bromide (Pavulon) in one 50 cc syringe, and (3) 50 cc/ 50mEq. of potassium chloride in one 50 cc syringe. Each of those drugs is administered at the rate of 1 to 1.5 ml/second, and each, in the dosage administered, is believed to be lethal on its own. Sodium pentothal is a sedative; Pavulon stops the breathing; potassium chloride stops the heart. Apart from preparations, the execution process begins when the inmate is strapped to the execution table, an IV line is inserted into each arm, and a saline solution commences to run through the line into the inmate. The inmate is checked to observe for swelling or discoloration and to assure that the solution is flowing. At the appropriate signal, the first syringe of sodium pentothal is administered. The syringe is then removed and the second syringe of sodium pentothal is administered. That syringe is then removed, and the saline solution is allowed to run for ten seconds. At that point, the Pavulon is administered. The Pavulon syringe is then removed and, again, the saline solution is allowed to run for ten seconds. Finally, the potassium chloride is administered. That syringe is removed and the saline solution flows for another ten seconds. [15] When the EKG monitor indicates that no heart activity is occurring, the physician advises the execution team leader and the physician pronounces death. See EOM, Lethal Injection Checklist at 4-6. Evans complains that this procedure deviates from the statute in three ways: first, he claims, the statute calls for the administration of two drugs, but the EOM adds a third, a second paralytic agent; second, the statute requires a continuous intravenous administration of an ultrashort-acting barbiturate, but the EOM calls for two bursts of sodium pentothal; and third, whereas CS § 3-906(c)(1) requires the Commissioner to select execution professionals who are trained to administer the lethal injection, the EOM requires only the hiring of trained persons but does not specify what kind of training is required. A short answer to this complaint is that the issue of whether the EOM is consistent with CS § 3-905 was presented in Oken v. State, 381 Md. 580, 851 A.2d 538 (2004) and rejected by us on the merits. In Oken, we held that the method of execution intended to be implemented by the Division of Correction does not violate the provisions of Maryland Code (1999, 2003 Cum.Supp.) § 3-905 of the Correctional Services Article or constitute a cruel or unusual punishment. . . . Id. at 580-81, 851 A.2d at 538. Evans asks us either to ignore or overrule that clear, precedential holding because it was expressed in a per curiam opinion without any explanatory comment. He points out that the truncated litigation in Oken led a Federal District Court judge, in Oken v. Sizer, 321 F.Supp.2d 658 (D.Md.2004) to doubt the quality, extensiveness, or fairness of procedures in the case and to decline to give res judicata effect to our decision. He neglects to mention, however, which counsel has a clear ethical obligation to do, that two days later, the Supreme Court vacated the stay of execution ordered by the District Court judge ( Sizer v. Oken, 542 U.S. 916, 124 S.Ct. 2868, 159 L.Ed.2d 290 (2004)) and, on remand, the District Court denied the requested stay and allowed execution of the death sentence against Oken to proceed. Our ruling in Oken was in the form of a summary per curiam order because, like Evans, Oken waited more than 10 years, until the very eve of his scheduled execution, to present the claim. The Court did give fair consideration to it, however, as evidenced by the dissent filed by Chief Judge Bell. We would never have permitted that death sentence to be executed if we had any reason to believe that Oken had a legitimate claim. Because we have stayed the warrant of execution issued against Evans to consider the other issues raised by him, we shall respond in full to his argument. The issue ultimately is one of statutory construction. Whether the Lethal Injection Checklist violates or is inconsistent with CS § 3-905 depends on how that statute is properly construed. We can quickly dispose of two of Evans's claims. He argues that the EOM method of administering the ultrashort-acting barbiturate deviates from the statute in that it calls for administering the drug in two separate bursts, where the [statute] calls for its `continuous intravenous administration' until death. There is no such deviation. Under the EOM procedure, the barbiturate is administered continuously. It is inserted in advance into two 60 cc syringes, and, as soon as one is administered, that syringe is removed and the drug in the second syringe is injected. There is no flushing of saline solution between the two injections. The mere fact that DOC has chosen to administer the 120 cc of barbiturate in two syringes, the second injected immediately after the first, rather than in one 120 cc syringe, does not make the administration non-continuous. The second argument that may be summarily disposed of is that DOC has not selected persons trained to administer the lethal injection. Evans has offered utterly no evidence in this case to support that assertion but complains only that the EOM does not specify what type of training is required. Neither does the statute. The only argument worthy of more intensive consideration lies in the assertion that the statute specifies the administration of only one chemical paralytic agent, whereas the EOM calls for the administration of two  Pavulon and potassium chloride. The question is whether, when the Legislature directed that there be the administration of  an ultrashort-acting barbiturate or other similar drug in combination with a chemical paralytic agent (emphasis added), it intended to preclude the use of more than one chemical paralytic agent  whether a or an, as used in that statute, necessarily implies the singular. As we have held so often, and most recently in Oakland v. Mountain Lake Park, 392 Md. 301, 316, 896 A.2d 1036, 1045 (2006), and Frederick v. Pickett, 392 Md. 411, 427, 897 A.2d 228, 237 (2006), the prime objective in construing statutes is to determine and implement the legislative intent. We look first to the language actually used by the Legislature, and if that language is clear and unambiguous, we need go no further. If the intent, as relevant to the issue at hand, is not so clear from the statutory language alone, however, we may consider relevant and reliable external indicators, including the legislative history of the statute. The articles a or an are indefinite articles, in contrast to the definite article the. They do not, however, necessarily imply the singular, but generally take their meaning in that regard from the context in which they are used. See Deutsch v. Mortgage Securities Co., 96 W.Va. 676, 123 S.E. 793, 795 (1924) (The indefinite article `a' may sometimes mean one, where only one is intended, or it may mean one of a number, depending upon context.); National Union Bank v. Copeland, 141 Mass. 257, 4 N.E. 794, 795-96 (1886) ([T]he particle `a' is not necessarily a singular term. It is often used in the sense of `any,' and is then applied to more than one individual object.); Lewis v. Spies, 43 A.D.2d 714, 350 N.Y.S.2d 14, 17 (1973) (The indefinite article `a' is not necessarily a singular term. It is often used to mean `any' rather than `one.'). Most courts have construed a or an as meaning any and as not restricted to just one. See Lindley v. Murphy, 387 Ill. 506, 56 N.E.2d 832, 838 (1944) (The article `a' is generally not used in a singular sense unless such an intention is clear from the language of the statute.); Chavira v. State, 167 Tex.Crim. 197, 319 S.W.2d 115, 120 (1958) (a means the same as any); First American Nat. Bank v. Olsen, 751 S.W.2d 417, 421 (Tenn.1987) (same); Application of Hotel St. George Corporation, 207 N.Y.S.2d 529 (Sup.Ct. Kings Co.1960) (same); State v. Snyder, 149 Ohio St. 333, 78 N.E.2d 716, 718 (1948); compare Harward v. Com., 229 Va. 363, 330 S.E.2d 89, 91 (1985). It is evident, then, that whether the General Assembly intended to preclude the inclusion in the lethal mix of more than one paralytic agent cannot be determined, as a matter of law, from the language of the statute alone. The Legislature did not say  one chemical paralytic agent, which, if that is what it intended, it could have done. We need to turn, then, to other indicia of intent, the most relevant and cogent of which, we think, is the legislative history of the statute. Prior to the 1994 legislation, Maryland used the gas chamber  lethal gas  as the means of executing the death sentence. The switch to lethal injection was recommended by the Governor's Commission on the Death Penalty in its 1993 Report. See The Report of the Governor's Commission on the Death Penalty, supra, at xx and 214-18. The Commission noted that the historical method of execution in Maryland was hanging and that in 1955, the Legislature substituted lethal gas because that method was regarded as less painful and more dignified than either hanging or electrocution. The Commission added, however, that the national trend had more recently moved away from lethal gas because it was thought to kill by asphyxiation and that the suffocation or strangulation accompanying the asphyxiation could cause extreme pain for as long as twelve minutes. Maryland, it said, was the only State then to mandate that method. Id. at 215. The rejection of lethal gas had prompted at least 24 States to substitute lethal injection as the method of execution. The Commission advised that [t]he injection of a fast-acting barbiturate or other lethal drug appears to cause death quickly without the pain associated with the slower death caused by lethal gas. Id. at 217. A bill to substitute lethal injection for the gas chamber was introduced into the 1993 session of the General Assembly (Sen. Bill 203), just after the Governor's Commission had been appointed. [16] The bill passed the Senate but died in the House of Delegates. The Commission report, recommending the change, was filed in November, 1993, and two months later, companion bills nearly identical to Sen. Bill 203 were introduced into the 1994 session as Administration Bills (House Bill 498 and Sen. Bill 304). The Legislature was clearly aware from both the Commission report and from evidence presented to it in connection with the 1993 bill (S.B. 203) that more than 21 States (24 by the time the Commission report was released) had mandated lethal injection as the means of executing death sentences. A simple comparison shows that the Maryland statute is nearly identical to those that had been adopted earlier in nine other States. See ARK.CODE ANN. § 5-4-617(a); 725 ILL. COMP. STAT. ANN. 5/119-5(a)(1); MISS.CODE ANN. § 99-19-51; MONT.CODE ANN. § 46-19-103(3); N.M. STAT. ANN. § 31-14-11; N.C. GEN.STAT. § 15-187; OKLA. STAT. ANN. tit. 22, § 1014(A); S.D. CODIFIED LAWS § 23A-27A-32; WYO. STAT. ANN. § 7-13-904(a). We are informed, without contradiction by Evans, that in at least 24 of the States using lethal injection, the same three drugs called for in the EOM were prescribed, although not all of those States have statutes that specify the kinds of drugs to be used. [17] We are not aware of any case, and none has been cited to us by Evans, in which a court in any State with a statute similar to CS § 3-905 has held that the three-drug protocol is inconsistent with the governing statute. More significant, at the hearing conducted by the House Judiciary Committee on House Bill 498, on March 3, 1994, the Committee asked the Commissioner of Correction to provide a description of the lethal injection process. Given that the raison d'etre for the change was that lethal injection was a much more humane approach, an explanation of the process was surely a matter of interest to the Legislature. The Commissioner responded on March 8, and advised the Committee that the process would be just what is called for in the EOM-that the inmate would be strapped to a fixed gurney, that catheters would be placed in both arms and a saline solution administered until the command is given to commence the execution, that a quantity of sodium pentothal would then be administered, that the line would then be flushed with normal saline solution, that a quantity of Pavulon would then be administered followed by another flushing with saline solution, and that a quantity of potassium chloride would then be injected. The entire process, he said, would take 10 to 15 minutes. The Commissioner added that [a] trained execution team would conduct all activities associated with the execution process and that [a] medical doctor would be available to confirm that death has occurred. It is thus evident that the Legislature was well aware that, if it enacted the statute authorizing lethal injection, the statute would be implemented by the three-drug mixture. Following the receipt of that advice, the statute was enacted. There is no evidence that any member of the Legislature questioned whether the approach described by the Commissioner would be consistent with the statute. On this record, we conclude, as we did in Oken, that the EOM protocol is not inconsistent with the statute.