House passes PACE Act limiting use of artistic expression as evidence in criminal cases

Annapolis, March 19, 2026 — The Maryland House of Delegates voted 99‑37 to pass House Bill 687, the PACE Act, which restricts when a defendant’s creative expression can be used against them in criminal and juvenile proceedings.

Floor debate focused on how the bill applies to music, social media, journals and other artistic forms. The floor leader described the measure as codifying the existing Maryland test (Maryland v. Monteque standard) and said judges must weigh probative value, literal versus figurative content, and whether facts in the art match the alleged conduct. "The facts have to match the allegation," the floor leader said.

The minority leader raised a hypothetical about rap lyrics and whether a judge or jury could consider a lyric that appears to describe a crime: "If I have a song that's like, 'Yeah, I shot him...,' can that still be used?" The floor leader replied that admissibility depends on the context and a judge's preliminary assessment of probative value.

Delegates from multiple jurisdictions discussed social‑media posts, journals and other expressive forms and the bill’s role in guiding pretrial evidentiary review. Sponsors said the legislation creates uniform judicial review and protects artistic expression from being used as stand‑alone evidence without a showing of direct probative value.

HB 687 was declared passed after the roll call. The measure now proceeds as the House's enrolled version toward final processing.

What happens next: With passage in the House, the enrolled bill will move toward final enrollment and transmission to the other chamber (if applicable) or toward any executive consideration as required by session procedures.

Who said it (selected): The floor leader explained the bill's standards; the minority leader asked whether lyrics and social posts could be used as evidence; other delegates discussed scope and examples.