Langworthy v. State

• Decision Date: 28 March 1979
• Docket Number: No. 47,47
• Citation: 399 A.2d 578,284 Md. 588
• Parties: John Alan LANGWORTHY v. STATE of Maryland.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

Page 588

284 Md. 588

399 A.2d 578

John Alan LANGWORTHY v. STATE of Maryland.

No. 47.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

March 28, 1979.

George E. Burns, Jr., Asst. Public Defender (Alan H. Murrell, Public Defender, Baltimore, on the brief), for appellant.

Stephen B. Caplis, Asst. Atty. Gen. (Francis B. Burch, Atty. Gen. and Clarence W. Sharp, Asst. Atty. Gen., Baltimore, on the brief), for appellee.

Argued Jan. 4, 1979 before MURPHY, C. J., and SMITH, DIGGES, ELDRIDGE and COLE, JJ.

Reargued March 6, 1979 before MURPHY, C. J., SMITH, DIGGES, ELDRIDGE, ORTH and COLE, JJ.

ORTH, Judge.

We ordered the issuance of a writ of certiorari to the Court of Special Appeals in the case of Langworthy v. State, 39 Md.App. 559, 387 A.2d 634 (1978) to determine the right of appeal by an accused who, charged with the commission of a crime under the jurisdiction of a circuit court, has successfully interposed the defense that he was insane at the time of its commission.

I

On 20 March 1978 the Circuit Court for Prince George's County ordered that John Alan Langworthy be confined in a facility designated by the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene for treatment. The order was the culmination in the circuit court of protracted proceedings in a criminal cause which began with the return of a three count indictment on 30 October 1974 presenting that Langworthy eleven days before had raped Deborah Eileen Poe (1st count), assaulted her with the intent to rape (2nd count) and assaulted and beat her (3rd count). The case came to trial on 28 July 1977 before the court sitting without a jury under a general plea of not guilty and a plea alleging insanity at the time of the commission of the offenses. ¹ At the close of all the evidence the court denied Langworthy's motion for a judgment of acquittal. Guilt or innocence under the general plea and the plea of insanity were separately argued and separately determined. The verdicts are reflected in the order issued by the court:

Upon consideration of the evidence presented to the Court in the above captioned matter, and the entry of a verdict by this Court that the defendant on the 19th day of October, 1974, was guilty of the crime of rape, but was insane at the time of the commission of the crime, it is this 2nd day of August 1977, hereby,

ORDERED, that John Alan Langworthy be and hereby is committed to the Department of Mental Hygiene, pursuant to Article 59, Section 27, of the Annotated Code of Maryland for confinement in one of the facilities of the State for examination and evaluation to determine, by the standards applicable to civil admission proceedings under Sections 11 and 12 of the above article, whether such person by reason of mental disorder would, if he becomes a free agent, be a danger to himself or to the safety of the person or property of others.

On 5 August 1977, Langworthy, in proper person, noted an appeal to the Court of Special Appeals. The order of 20 March 1978 confining Langworthy in a facility designated by the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene for treatment was upon a finding by the court that he, by reason of mental disorder would, if he became a free agent, be a danger to himself or to the safety of the person or property of others. The finding was on the basis of the report of Clifton T. Perkins Hospital, submitted pursuant to the order of 2 August 1977 that Langworthy be examined and evaluated, and other evidence adduced at a hearing on 13 March 1978. On 12 June 1978 the Court of Special Appeals dismissed Langworthy's appeal, Langworthy v. State, 39 Md.App. at 563, 387 A.2d 634, and we granted his petition for a writ of certiorari. The question is whether the intermediate appellate court erred in dismissing the appeal.

II

The proceedings below were in complete conformance with the statutes of this State and the Maryland Rules of Procedure applicable when the defense of insanity at the time of the commission of an alleged offense is interposed. A person accused of a crime within the jurisdiction of a circuit court "may plead not guilty, guilty, or, with the consent of the court, Nolo contendere. In addition to any of these pleas the defendant may interpose the defense of insanity as permitted by law." Maryland Rule 731 a. ² The defense of insanity is permitted by Maryland Code (1957, 1972 Repl.Vol.) art. 59, § 25(b):

When it is desired to interpose the defense of insanity on behalf of one charged with the commission of a crime the defendant or his counsel shall at the time of pleading to the warrant, indictment or information unless the court for good cause shown shall allow a later plea, file a plea in writing in addition to the plea or pleas otherwise required or permitted by law, alleging that the defendant was insane at time of the commission of the alleged crime. ³

When such plea of insanity has been entered

(t)he judge of the court in which such warrant, indictment or information is pending and in which such plea of insanity has been entered shall have full power and authority to order an examination of the mental condition of such person by the Department of Mental Hygiene, subject to the provisions of § 26 of this article. (Id.) ⁴

At a trial of any case where a plea in writing alleging that the defendant was insane at the time of the commission of the alleged crime has been filed by the defendant or his counsel

. . . the court shall direct the jury to render a special verdict on the sanity of the defendant at the time of the alleged crime. (Id.)

We think that the special verdict is also required in a non-jury trial. See Md.Rule 760; ⁵ Turner v. State, 5 Md.App. 584, 590, 248 A.2d 801 (1968), Cert. denied, 253 Md. 735 (1969). ⁶

The significance of a plea of insanity is that "(a) defendant is not responsible for criminal conduct and shall be found insane at the time of the commission of the alleged crime if, at the time of such conduct as a result of mental disorder, he lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of (the) law." Code (1957, 1972 Repl.Vol.) art. 59, § 25(a). ⁷

Three eventualities, which we now formulate, arise when there is a plea of insanity at the time of the commission of the offense in addition to a general plea of not guilty:

1) If the verdict on the general plea is not guilty, the plea of insanity becomes moot. Patently, a person, whether sane or insane, may not be held criminally responsible for an offense of which he has been acquitted. In such event, the accused has attained all he sought, and walks out of the courtroom a free man.

2) If the verdict on the general plea is guilty and the special verdict on the additional plea is that the defendant was sane at the time of the commission of the offense, the court shall impose sentence. The accused has failed in all he sought by his pleas and on appeal from the judgment may challenge the propriety of both the finding of guilt of the substantive offense and the determination that he was sane at the time of its commission.

3) If the verdict on the general plea is guilty and the special verdict on the additional plea is that the accused was insane at the time of the commission of the offense, he has failed in what he sought under his general plea but attained what he sought by his additional plea, in that he shall not be held responsible for his criminal conduct. Two courses are then open in the trial court. In its discretion, it may either turn him loose or, as authorized by Code (1957, 1972 Repl.Vol.) art. 59, § 27, commit him "to the Department of Mental Hygiene for confinement in one of the facilities of the State for examination and evaluation to determine, by the standards applicable to civil admission proceedings under §§ 11 and 12 of (art. 59), whether such person by reason of mental disorder would, if he becomes a free agent, be a danger to himself or to the safety of the person or property of others. Upon the basis of the report by the facility, and any other evidence before it, the court may in its discretion, direct that the person be confined in a facility designated by the Department for treatment."

As we have indicated, the third eventuality occurred in Langworthy's case. The trial court, in the exercise of its discretion, had him committed for examination and evaluation as authorized by the statute. Upon the basis of the report thereby submitted and other evidence before it, the court directed that he be confined for treatment. Thus, the disposition of Langworthy was in full compliance with the statutory scheme.

III

(a)

The first step in determining whether the Court of Special Appeals erred in dismissing the appeal is to ascertain from what Langworthy appealed. The notice of appeal, filed by him in proper person, asserted that it was from "denial of his personal rights." There followed a listing of 28 "personal rights" which he designated as having been abridged, and a catchall "For any such other and further denials of this appellant's personal rights as may be represented at any time." ⁸ The appeal was filed after the order that he be confined for examination and evaluation (predicated upon the verdicts that he was guilty of rape and was insane at the time of its commission) but before the order committing him for treatment because the examination and evaluation and other evidence established that he suffered from a mental disorder so as to be, if a free agent, a danger to himself or to the safety of the person or property of others. We do not reach the question whether a defendant may challenge in his criminal case an order committing him for treatment upon a finding, by the standards applicable to civil admission proceedings, that he suffered from a mental disorder which rendered him, if he became a free agent, a danger to himself or to the safety of the person or property of others. The appeal here, by its timing, could not be from the order of 20 ...