dissenting:
Today the Court holds that Maryland Code (1957, 1982 Repl.Vol., 1984 Cum.Supp.), Art. 41, § 124(c), does not preclude the State’s Attorney from preparing and submitting to the court a victim impact statement in addition to the one ordered from and submitted by the Division of Parole and Probation as part of its presentence investigation.
The pertinent language of § 124(c)(2)(h), is as follows (emphasis added):
“(ii) If the court does not order a presentence investigation, the State’s attorney may prepare a victim impact statement to be submitted to the court____”
The Court construes this language to mean exactly the opposite from what it says. As the majority re-writes this statutory provision, it also means that the State’s attorney may prepare and submit to the court a victim impact statement if the court does order a presentence investigation. The majority, ignoring the plain language used by the General Assembly and purportedly relying on legislative history, deletes the word “not” from the statute.
We have repeated time after time that “if there is no ambiguity or obscurity in the language of a statute, there is usually no need to look elsewhere to ascertain the intent of the General Assembly.” Vallario v. State Roads Comm’n, 290 Md. 2, 6, 426 A.2d 1384 (1981). See, e.g., Sibert v. State, 301 Md. 141, 153, 482 A.2d 483 (1984); Bd. of Examiners in Optometry v. Spitz, 300 Md. 466, 474, 479 A.2d 363 (1984); Ryder Truck Lines v. Kennedy, 296 Md. *824528, 535, 536, 463 A.2d 850 (1983); Utt v. State, 293 Md. 271, 286, 443 A.2d 582 (1982); Department of Public Safety v. LeVan, 288 Md. 533, 544-545, 419 A.2d 1052 (1980). I assume, however, that unambiguous legislative history directly pertinent to the issue before the Court constitutes an exception to this principle. In other words, despite the plain language of a statute, we will look to legislative history where “the legislative history sheds considerable light on the question before the Court,” Train v. Colo. Public Interest Research Group, 426 U.S. 1, 10, 96 S.Ct. 1938, 1942, 48 L.Ed.2d 434 (1976). See Curtis v. State, 284 Md. 132, 142, 148-149, 395 A.2d 464 (1978). See also Murphy, Plain-Meaning Rule, 75 Colum.L.Rev. 1299 (1975); Jones, The Plain Meaning Rule and Extrinsic Aids in the Interpretation of Federal Statutes, 25 Washington University Law Quarterly 2 (1939).
In the instant case, however, the legislative history relied on by the majority does not shed “considerable light on the question before the Court.” It is entirely ambiguous, and does not directly address the issue now before the Court. At best, as the majority states, “[t]his legislative history suggests an intent to establish minimum standards for the information to be provided to judges____” (Emphasis added.) The majority relies on a negative, i.e., that there is “no evidence from ... the legislative history ... of an intent to limit the victim’s role to the single Victim Impact Statement of the presentence investigation.”
In my opinion, such ambiguous legislative history does not furnish an adequate basis for ignoring clear and unambiguous statutory language. Because the failure to comply with the statutory sentencing procedures is reversible error, Scott v. State, 289 Md. 647, 426 A.2d 923 (1981), I would remand this case for re-sentencing.
Judge COLE has authorized me to state that he concurs with the views expressed herein.