Gossard v. Criminal Injuries Compensation Board

³¹⁰ Digges, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The appellant in this case presents for our consideration the startling proposition that a man who fathers a child is not related to that child within the third degree of consanguinity. However that may be as a legal fiction in other circumstances, we need not here ponder the riddle overlong, for we are clear that under the statute before us the suggestion must be rejected out of hand. This case involves a claim for an award under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act, Md. Code (1957, 1973 Repl.

Vol. & 1976 Cum. Supp.), Art. 26A, §§ 1-17, the statute throúgh which the General Assembly undertook to provide a measure of financial assistance in specified circumstances to innocent victims of crime and their dependents. See generally Criminal Inj. Comp.

Bd. v. Gould, 273 Md. 486, 495-96 , 331 A. 2d 55, 62 (1975). The portions of the. Act central to our decision are § 5 (b), excluding from eligibility for an award a member of the family of a person criminally responsible for the crime, and § 2 (d) (1), defining “family” to include “any person related to [another] person within the third degree of consanguinity ....” 1 The issue presented in this case is whether the claimant, the illegitimate child of an assailant and his victim, is a member of the “family” of the perpetrator of the crime so as to render that child ineligible to receive compensation under the Act. The record discloses that Carolyn J. Gossard filed a claim with the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board on behalf of.

David Michael Gossard, the dependent minor son of her ³¹¹ deceased sister, Sandra Louise Jordan. 2 The mother had been stabbed to death on July 20, 1974 by Michael Tony Errigo, who is conceded by the parties to be David’s biological father. The claim was denied on August 12, 1975 by order of the single board member to whom it was assigned for decision. Art. 26A, § 8. On appeal this order was affirmed by the full board, Art. 26A, § 9, that body noting that “a child is within the first degree of consanguinity with his parent and pursuant to the Statute, persons within that degree of relationship to the assailant are clearly excluded from receiving an award.” On review by the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County (Ralph W. Powers, C. J.), that decision was affirmed.

The appellant thereupon noted a further appeal to the Court of Special Appeals, but we granted certiorari on our own motion before that court considered the case. We now affirm the decision of the circuit court. Is David Michael Gossard, formerly Michael David Errigo, a member of Michael Tony Errigo’s family? David answers no.

He reads the language of § 2 (d) (1) which defines “family” as “any person related to [another] person within the third degree of consanguinity .. .,” (emphasis added) as requiring, in addition to a blood relationship, a “legal relationship” to establish one as a family member for purposes of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act. As we understand David’s contention, it is that because he is the illegitimate son of Michael Tony Errigo, and as such could not inherit from him under the law governing intestate succession,