ANNAPOLIS, Md. — Maryland’s highest court has upheld the convictions and 115-year sentence of a St. Mary’s County man ordered to serve 75 years in prison for sexually abusing and raping his minor daughter.
In an opinion filed July 28, 2026, the Supreme Court of Maryland affirmed the judgment against Brian Steven Spicuzza, rejecting his challenge to several evidentiary rulings made during his five-day trial in the Circuit Court for St. Mary’s County.
The abuse occurred over approximately two years, beginning around 2020, according to testimony summarized in the court’s opinion. The victim testified that the abuse began while Spicuzza was living with his parents and continued after he moved into an apartment.
The St. Mary’s County Sheriff’s Office began investigating allegations of sexual abuse involving minors in February 2022. Detectives identified several potential victims during the investigation and arrested Spicuzza, then 46, on Feb. 24, 2022.
A St. Mary’s County jury convicted Spicuzza on Jan. 9, 2023, of sexual abuse of a minor, four counts of second-degree rape and a third-degree sexual offense.
On June 16, 2023, Judge Joseph M. Stanalonis sentenced Spicuzza, then 48, to 115 years in prison, with all but 75 years suspended.
The sentence included:
- 25 years for sexual abuse of a minor
- Four consecutive 20-year sentences for second-degree rape, with 10 years suspended on each count
- 10 consecutive years for the third-degree sexual offense
Spicuzza received credit for 476 days already served. He was also ordered to serve five years of supervised probation following his release.
The St. Mary’s County State’s Attorney’s Office previously reported that Spicuzza will be subject to lifetime sex-offender supervision, must register as a sex offender for life and may not have contact with minors, including the victims in the case.
Testimony From Daughter’s Friends Challenged
Much of Spicuzza’s appeal focused on testimony from two of his daughter’s minor friends.
At trial, the girls described Spicuzza providing minors with alcohol, marijuana and vaping products while they visited his apartment. They also testified about sexual comments, pornography and alleged sexual misconduct directed toward them.
Spicuzza argued that the allegations involved separate, uncharged acts and should not have been introduced during his trial for crimes committed against his daughter.
The Supreme Court majority disagreed, finding that the testimony was admissible under Maryland’s “common scheme or plan” exception for evidence involving other wrongful acts.
The majority concluded that the evidence supported the State’s theory that Spicuzza created an environment in his apartment where his daughter and her friends were given intoxicating substances, exposed to sexual material and subjected to sexual advances.
The court determined that the conduct involving the friends was not merely being used to show Spicuzza’s criminal character, but was sufficiently connected to a broader plan involving his daughter and the other girls.
Court Finds Prosecutor’s Question Improper
The Supreme Court found that the trial judge made an error when allowing the prosecutor to ask Spicuzza why his daughter was lying about the abuse.
During his testimony, Spicuzza denied the allegations and described his daughter’s account as a “vile, false statement.” The prosecutor immediately asked, “So, why is your daughter lying?”
The Supreme Court ruled that the question was improper because determining whether a witness is truthful belongs to the jury. The question also required Spicuzza to speculate about his daughter’s thoughts and motives.
The court rejected the argument that Spicuzza had “opened the door” to the question through his own testimony. The proper response, the majority concluded, would have been for the prosecutor to object and ask the judge to instruct jurors to disregard his statement.
Despite finding an error, the court ruled that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and did not affect the verdict.
Spicuzza answered that he believed his daughter accused him because she felt he had destroyed her social life. The majority determined that the response did not meaningfully affect the trial when considered alongside the remaining evidence.
Character Witnesses Properly Excluded
Spicuzza also argued that the trial court should have allowed witnesses to testify about his reputation for honesty.
The Supreme Court rejected that argument, finding that he was not charged with an offense involving dishonesty or deceit and that inconsistencies exposed during cross-examination did not place his general character for truthfulness at issue.
The court also found that the defense’s proposed summaries of the character witnesses’ expected testimony lacked enough detail to establish a sufficient basis for their opinions about Spicuzza’s honesty.
Divided Court Leaves Convictions Intact
Justice Brynja Booth wrote the court’s principal opinion affirming the judgment.
Justice Shirley Watts agreed that the prosecutor’s question was improper and that the character witnesses were properly excluded, but disagreed with the majority’s decision to admit evidence involving the daughter’s friends.
Justice Jonathan Biran, joined by Justices Steven Gould and Angela Eaves, agreed that the convictions should be affirmed but disagreed with the conclusion that the prosecutor’s question was improper.
Justice Peter Killough filed a separate dissent arguing that the convictions should be reversed and the case returned for a new trial.
Killough concluded that the testimony involving the other girls and the prosecutor’s question improperly affected a case that largely depended on whether jurors believed Spicuzza or his daughter.
The Supreme Court ultimately affirmed the Appellate Court of Maryland, leaving Spicuzza’s convictions, 115-year sentence and 75 years of active incarceration intact.
Got a tip or photo? Text us at 888-871-NEWS (6397) or email news@thebaynet.com.
Join The BayNet Membership for exclusive perks and zero ads.
Don’t miss a story—sign up for our newsletter!