Defense lawyers for a Glen Burnie man charged with slaying his landlady and her daughter-in-law asked an Anne Arundel County judge yesterday to find Maryland's death penalty unconstitutional and eliminate the threat of execution hanging over their client.

The challenge follows a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June that struck down Arizona's capital punishment law. Attorneys for Kenneth E. Abend contend that the high court's ruling applies to Maryland's law.

Prosecutors disagree, saying Maryland's and Arizona's laws have key differences.

Circuit Judge Pamela L. North said yesterday that she would issue a ruling after she receives more legal briefs from both the prosecution and defense teams.

Abend, 39, is charged with killing Laverne M. Browning, 70, and Tamie C. Browning, 36, and related crimes. Their bodies were found Jan. 14 in the trunk of the younger woman's car after police received a call that blood was dripping from the vehicle.

Maryland's top court has not ruled on the capital punishment issues since the Arizona law was overturned. But the judges are set to hear arguments similar to those made yesterday for Abend in an automatic appeal of another death penalty case in February.

Yesterday, defense lawyers attacked Maryland's death penalty law on several fronts. For example, they argued that the murder indictment was flawed because it did not allege a capital crime. Maryland law requires prosecutors to notify the defendant that they will seek execution, which Assistant State's Attorney Frank J. Ragione said serves the same purpose.

"It is our position that there is no substitute for a charging document," said Harry Trainor Jr., one of Abend's three lawyers.

They also argued that when a jury decides life or death, all of its three key decisions should be made under the toughest legal standard.

Under Maryland law, if a jury convicts Abend, it must decide beyond a reasonable doubt that he was the trigger man and second, that the circumstances exist that would make him eligible for the death penalty. Here, prosecutors say, the circumstances exist because it was a double-homicide.

The third decision, that the aggravating conditions outweigh the reasons to spare his life based on a preponderance of the evidence, is less stringent. The defense contends that is contrary to the latest Supreme Court ruling.

Ragione disagreed, arguing that the Arizona case "is about how you get there, and [Maryland] has gotten there beyond a reasonable doubt."

Not asked by the judge to speak, Abend said nothing aloud, but whispered occasionally with his lawyers.

The trial, expected to last a month, is scheduled to start July 31. More hearings on pretrial motions are tentatively planned for May and mid-July.