Cowman v. State, 263

• Citation: 151 A.2d 903,220 Md. 207
• Decision Date: 08 June 1959
• Docket Number: No. 263,263
• Parties: Edward C. COWMAN v. STATE of Maryland.
• Court: Court of Appeals of Maryland

Page 207

220 Md. 207

151 A.2d 903

Edward C. COWMAN v. STATE of Maryland.

No. 263.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

June 8, 1959.

Elsbeth Levy, Baltimore, for appellant.

James H. Norris, Jr., Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen. (C. Ferdinand Sybert, Atty. Gen., J. Harold Grady, State's Atty., Norman Hochberg, Asst. State's Atty., Baltimore, on the brief), for Baltimore City.

Before BRUNE, C. J., and HENDERSON, HAMMOND, PRESCOTT and HORNEY, JJ.

HENDERSON, Judge.

This appeal is from an order committing the appellant to Patuxent Institution after a hearing before the court, without a jury, and a finding that the appellant was a defective delinquent under Code 1957, Art. 31B, § 9(b). Although the point is not raised in either brief, it appears from the transcript that the trial court, upon petition and affidavit of the appellant that he was without funds, ordered that the transcript and costs of appeal be supplied by the State, and appointed counsel to represent the appellant on this appeal. We express no opinion on the propriety of this action, since the point was not raised, except to note that Code 1958 Supp., Art. 5, § 15A, dealing with appeals in forma pauperis in criminal cases, other than death sentence cases, expressly excepts 'appeals in accordance with Article 31B.' On the other hand the Post Conviction Procedure Act, Code 1958 Supp., Art. 27, § 645A, includes proceedings under Art. 31B, but that Act is, of course, not applicable to this appeal. Code 1957, Art. 31B, § 11, provides that there shall be the same right of appeal from an order under sec. 9 to the Court of Appeals 'as in other civil proceedings.' We are not aware of any statutory authority for an appeal in forma pauperis in civil cases.

The appellant contends that he is not a defective delinquent as defined in Code 1957, Art. 31B, § 5, which defines the term defective delinquent as 'an individual who, by the demonstration of persistent aggravated anti-social or criminal behavior, evidences a propensity toward criminal activity, and who is found to have either such intellectual deficiency or emotional unbalance, or both, as to clearly demonstrate an actual danger to society so as to require such confinement and treatment, when appropriate, as may make it reasonably safe for society to terminate the confinement and treatment.'

Since the appeal challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the court's finding, it is necessary to state the facts in some detail. On January 8, 1958, the appellant was found guilty in the Criminal Court of Baltimore on two indictments charging burglary of his employer's warehouse and safe. The medical officer of the Supreme Bench made an exhaustive examination and report, diagnosing him as a sociopathic personality. He was sentenced on February 7, 1958, to one year on each indictment, to be served concurrently, and ordered to Patuxent Institution for examination. On October 16, 1958, through counsel appointed by the court under Code 1957, Art. 31B, § 8, appellant pleaded not guilty to being a defective delinquent. Dr. Boslow, Director of Patuxent Institution, submitted his report containing the following pertinent information:

The appellant, 48 years of age, has been a heavy drinker for many years. Since 1946, he has repeatedly run afoul of the law. He is described as 'basically a cold, hostile person who has only superficial relationships with other people and cares for them only in relation to his ability to exploit them to meet his own needs.' He tends to use his excellent intelligence to flout the law. He is described as a dependent, demanding infant who is angry with the world which does not fulfill his demands. His chronic abuse of alcohol not only emphasizes his emotional instability but may have helped blur his concept of and concern for society. He is in the very superior range of intelligence but functions rather poorly in social judgment. A barren self-concept, unconscious aggressiveness and poor interpersonal relationships are other features.

The report further states: 'In the opinion of the staff, this man is a predatory, unmoral, emotionally unstable man, who is likely to continue to violate laws. It is recommended that he be committed to this institution as a defective delinquent.'

Appellant had been convicted on two previous occasions. In 1946 he was convicted of grand larceny in California, but granted probation after one year in jail, on condition that he make payments on the value of the stolen articles, some $4,000. Probation was revoked because he stopped payments and was drinking heavily, and he spent another eighteen months in jail before being paroled, and parole transferred to Maryland. In July, 1955, he was convicted in Baltimore City of larceny after trust and sentenced to one year in the House of Correction. Medical examinations at that time indicated that he had a defective personality.

At the hearing in the instant case, Dr. Boslow, when asked whether the appellant represented an actual danger to society, replied: 'Insofar as he will repeat the same offense he has in the past,' which he particularized as 'stealing, embezzlement victimizing people, that sort of thing.' Dr. Boslow also testified he believed the appellant was a defective delinquent on the basis that he will repeat his criminal acts. On cross-examination, Dr. Boslow testified that the appellant could not be helped by private psychiatric treatment because it is necessary that he be institutionalized in order to be 'reached' and...