Meyers v. State, 126

CourtCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland
Writing for the CourtGILBERT; In the instant case
Citation326 A.2d 773,23 Md.App. 275
PartiesJames R. MEYERS v. STATE of Maryland.
Docket NumberNo. 126,126
Decision Date24 October 1974

Page 275

23 Md.App. 275
326 A.2d 773
STATE of Maryland.
No. 126.
Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.
Oct. 24, 1974.

[326 A.2d 774]

Page 276

C. Raymond Hartz, with whom was Arnold Zerwitz, Asst. Public Defenders, Baltimore, for appellant.

Francis B. Burch, Atty. Gen., Donald R. Stutman, Asst. Atty. Gen., Warren B. Duckett, Jr., State's Atty. for Anne Arundel County, and Joseph J. Reina, Asst. State's Atty. for Anne Arundel County, for appellee.

Submitted on brief to MORTON, GILBERT and MOORE, JJ.


James R. Meyers was convicted in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundell County of receiving stolen goods, and he was sentenced to imprisonment for a term of three years. He was referred to Patuxent Institution for evaluation. Meyers refused to submit to mental health examinations at Patuxent and was cited for contempt. See McNeil v. Director, Patuxent Institution, 407 U.S. 245, 92 S.Ct. 2083, 32 L.Ed.2d 719 (1972); State v. Weeder, 22 Md.App. 249, 322 A.2d 253 (1974); Marsh v. State, 22 Md.App. 173, 322 A.2d 247 (1974); Savage v. State, 19 Md.App. 1, 308 A.2d 701 (1973). 1 When the case was called for trial before Judge Ridgely P. Melvin, the State withdrew its petition and requested the court to sign a new order in which Meyers was directed to submit to the following:

'(1) Weschler Adult Intelligence Scale; (2) The Bender-Gestalt Test; (3) Draw a Person Test; (4) The Rorschack Ink Blot Test; (5) A Social Service interview; (6) An electroencephalogram; (7) A

Page 277

psychiatric interview; and that he shall cooperate with the staff in the examinations; . . .' 2

The order also contained a proviso that:

'. . . (A)ny information elicited from (Meyers) during the course of his examination and evaluation at Patuxent Institution shall not be used, directly or indirectly, as a basis for subsequent criminal prosecution of (Meyers).' 3

The order was signed by Judge Melvin on February 5, 1973 and served upon Meyers. Notwithstanding the court order, Meyers flatly refused to submit to the tests and interviews.

Because of Meyer's refusal to comply with the new order, the State once again initiated contempt proceedings against him. The matter came up for hearing before Judge Matthew S. Evans, at which time Meyers moved for a jury trial. Judge Evans, however, stated that 'The acts alleged are insufficient in the eyes of this court to merit punishment by a term of six months,' if (Meyers were found to be guilty now) serving, but (Meyers may) purge that no jury trial was warranted. The case was then tried before Judge Evans. Meyers was adjudicated to be in contempt and committed to the custody and jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Correction for a period of six (6) months less one day, and 'this sentence is to run consecutively to any sentence or sentences (Meyers is now) serving, but (Meyers may) purge (himself) of this.' The trial judge advised Meyers, in effect, that if he, Meyers, submitted to the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Murphy v. State, 1445
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • 9 Julio 1980
    ...32 Md.App. 490, 497-98, 362 A.2d 660, 665 (1976); Pearson v. State, 28 Md.App. 464, 486-87, 347 A.2d 239, 252 (1975); Meyers v. State, 23 Md.App. 275, 278, 326 A.2d 773, 775 (1974); Robinson v. State, 19 Md.App. 20, 27, 308 A.2d 712, 716 (1973); and In re Kinlein, 15 Md.App. 625, 641, 292 A......
  • Turner v. State, Office of Public Defender, 568
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • 1 Septiembre 1984
    ...Miller provides no guidance for us in the case sub judice, because Miller was injured while on the employer's premises, see Miller, 23 Md.App. at 275 n. 2., 326 A.2d at 188 n. 2. Turner was not. 7 For those cases holding that injuries arising from playing ball are, under the attendant circu......
  • Mitchell v. Mitchell, 497
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • 1 Septiembre 1984
    ...Elzey v. Elzey, 291 Md. 369, 374, 435 A.2d 445 (1981); State v. Roll and Scholl, 267 Md. 714, 728, 298 A.2d 867 (1973); Meyers v. State, 23 Md.App. 275, 278, 326 A.2d 773 (1974), cert. denied, 276 Md. 747 (1975). We cannot reach these contentions, however, because the mere finding of civil ......
  • Hopkins v. State, 297
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • 19 Diciembre 1974
    ...867 (1973); Thomas v. State, 21 Md.App. 572, 320 A.2d 538 (1974), cert. denied by the Court of Appeals, 1974; Meyers v. State, Md.App., 326 A.2d 773, filed October 24, 1974. We cannot help but observe that we may not 'have an America' if everyone decides to take the law into his own hands a......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT