Hamill, In re

• Decision Date: 29 December 1970
• Docket Number: No. 94,94
• Citation: 271 A.2d 762,10 Md.App. 586
• Parties: In the Matter of Leigh Ann HAMILL.
• Court: Court of Special Appeals of Maryland

Page 586

10 Md.App. 586

271 A.2d 762

In the Matter of Leigh Ann HAMILL.

No. 94.

Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.

Dec. 29, 1970.

Edward D. E. Rollins, Jr., and Judson P. Garrett, Jr., Elkton, for appellant.

Francis X. Pugh, Asst. Atty. Gen., with whom were Francis B. Burch, Atty. Gen., and Donaldson C. Cole, Jr., State's Atty., Cecil County, on brief for appellee.

Argued before MURPHY, C. J., and MORTON and MOYLAN, JJ.

MURPHY, Chief Judge.

On October 17, 1969, Leigh Ann Hamill, age 17, a boarding student at a private high school in Cecil County, sold two bags of marihuana to an undercover police officer, Trooper Tommy L. Bays of the Maryland State Police, as a result of which Bays petitioned the court to find Leigh a delinquent child under Maryland Code (1969 Supp.) Article 26, Sections 70 through 70-26. At the juvenile hearing held January 30, 1970, Leigh, through her counsel, advised the court that the facts in the juvenile petition would not be contested. On this foundation the court found Leigh a delinquent child. It then proceeded to consider the appropriate disposition to be made in the case, and Leigh was called to testify in this connection. She stated that she had the marihuana secluded in her room at school; that she had smoked it on a number of occasions, usually with friends; that because the school administrators were searching rooms, she decided to rid herself of the marihuana; that her roommate told her that she had a friend who wanted to buy some marihuana; that a meeting was arranged by the roommate on the school campus and she sold the marihuana to her roommate's friend, not knowing who he was. Leigh testified that she had offered to give the marihuana to the man; that she had never sold marihuana before; that she realized it was against the law to possess marihuana; and that she tried LSD on two occasions but did not like it.

Upon completion of Leigh's testimony, the juvenile judge stated:

'Well, I do not know whether or not I am going to confine this girl or not. It is going to depend on my confirmation when I talk to Officer Bays. If she is telling the truth about her dealings with Officer Bays, that will be one thing. If she is lying, that will be something else * * *.'

Trooper Bays then testified. He confirmed most of Leigh's testimony but denied that she offered to give him the marihuana without payment. He stated that Leigh wanted to sell it and that she had set the price, which he paid; and that she insinuated that she might have additional 'stuff' (marihuana) for future sale.

Leigh's father testified, and acknowledged that his daughter was a problem. He said that he and his wife had tried for several years to 'reach' Leigh and 'show her what is right'; that since her arrest her conduct had been exemplary and her behavior had greatly improved. Mr. Hamill conceded 'we have a long ways to go.' He was, however, confident that Leigh could be rehabilitated 'without sending her away.'

The report of the Juvenile Probation Department, received in evidence, disclosed in general that Leigh's parents were religious, financially secure, lived in a nice home, with no children other than Leigh living with them (one boy being away in the Marine Corps); that Mr. Hamill was a strict disciplinarian 'with little show of outward emotion'; that Leigh 'feels that her parents have undue expectations of her and that her father particularly is unwilling to bend'; that a 'lack of communication' existed between Leigh and her family; and that the family had sought psychiatric and psychological help for Leigh. The report noted that Leigh seemed 'more remorseful at having been caught selling the drug than in having used it occasionally.' It concluded by offering the opinion that Leigh 'has learned a lesson from this experience and will not be before the Court again,' and that the family 'should receive family counseling as had been previously sought out.' The record further disclosed that as a result of her marihuana sale to Trooper Bays, Leigh was asked to and did leave school in November of 1969; that she then went to work as a clerk with an insurance company and in that capacity worked for several months prior to her juvenile hearing; that she also attended school, several nights weekly, to obtain her high school diploma; and that she hoped to pursue a career in commercial art or interior decorating.

Upon completion of closing arguments of counsel, the court rendered its disposition, stating:

'The court certainly has some grave responsibilities in cases of this sort, from the standpoint of all elements of society that are involved, the community, the children, the girl that is charged with being delinquent here, the parents, all of these things have to be considered. The evidence in this case is that this girl of superior intelligence-incidentally, who should know if anyone should know better-has sold marijuana in one of the schools of our county while a member of one of the schools. The evidence is uncontradicted and undisputed that she had an intimation at least that she would be getting some more stuff in, which another deal might be arranged, which indicates more than just a single incident. The Court realizes full well that it is a calculated risk to commit a girl of this age and that there is a possibility of danger to her and to her future; but there is certainly a greater danger to society and that danger is so great that the court believes that the risk must be taken; and therefore disposition of this case is that this girl, Leigh Ann Hamill, be committed to the Montrose School for Girls for an indefinite period.'

On appeal from this disposition, appellant Hamill contends that (1) the court erroneously disposed of the matter solely on the basis of the offense without regard to her rehabilitative needs, and (2) that the court erred in conducting its own examination of a witness out of the presence of appellant and her counsel.

The law of this State governing juvenile causes and delinquent children was substantially revised by Chapter 432 of the Act of 1969. The purposes of the Act were plainly outlined, in part, as follows (Article 26, Section 70):

'(1) To provide for the care, protection and wholesome mental and...