Murel v. Director, Patuxent Inst., 135

CourtCourt of Appeals of Maryland
Citation213 A.2d 576,240 Md. 258
Docket NumberNo. 135,135
Decision Date20 October 1965

Page 258

240 Md. 258
213 A.2d 576
Albert Delane MUREL
No. 135.
Court of Appeals of Maryland.
Oct. 20, 1965.

Page 259


HORNEY, Judge.

This is an application for leave to appeal from the order of the Criminal Court of Baltimore dated December 21, 1964, recommitting Albert Delane Murel to Patuxent Institution after a jury had determined that he was still a defective delinquent within the meaning of § 5 of Article 31B of the Code (1964 Cum.Supp.).

The applicant was convicted of burglary and sentenced on February 5, 1962, to a [213 A.2d 577] term of one year in the Maryland State Reformatory dating from December 10, 1961. On April 12, 1962, the applicant was transferred to Patuxent for evaluation at the request of the Department of Correction. On November 30, 1962, the applicant was found to be a defective delinquent by Judge Byrnes sitting without a jury. The application for leave to appeal from the initial determination of defective delinquency was denied by this Court in Murel v. Director, 231 Md. 661, 191 A.2d 445 (1963).

In the interim between the initial defective delinquent hearing and the redetermination hearing, the applicant filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, seeking his release from Patuxent on the grounds, primarily, that the defective delinquent law violates the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, subjected him to double jeopardy and compelled him to be a witness against himself in violation of the Fifth Amendment.

Page 260

The petition was denied without a hearing and upon appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, the case was consolidated with a number of other cases generally known as the Consolidated Sas Cases. The decision in those cases is reported in Sas v. State of Maryland, 334 F.2d 506 (4th Cir. 1964).

In this application for leave to appeal from the order recommiting him to Patuxent, the applicant raised only three contentions: (i) that the finding of the jury was against the weight of the evidence; (ii) that his testimony conclusively showed that he was ready to resume his role in society; and (iii) that the sole witness for the State (Dr. Harold M. Boslow) was allowed to testify as to the conclusions reached by others and not from first...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • Sas v. State of Maryland
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Maryland)
    • January 15, 1969
    ...record of the proceedings, shall make explicit findings of fact and expressly state his conclusions of law." In Murel v. Director, 1965, 240 Md. 258, 213 A.2d 576, the Maryland Court of Appeals elaborated on the scope of the hearing to be had in the Daniels remand. Murel had raised various ......
  • Director of Patuxent Institution v. Daniels, 520
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • June 3, 1966
    ...Appeals has in three cases since Sas, upheld the validity of this procedure. Wames v. Director, 240 Md. 39, 212, A.2d 467, Murel v. Director, 240 Md. 258, 213 A.2d 576, and Alt v. Director, 240 Md. 262, 213 A.2d 746 (all Also see 'Expert Opinion and the Ultimate Issue Doctrine', M.L.R. XXII......
  • McDonough v. State, 192
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • May 20, 1969 this opinion, and to the authorities already cited we would add, Gray v. Director, 245 Md. 80, 224 A.2d 879 (1966); Murel v. Director, 240 Md. 258, 213 A.2d 576 (1965); Blakney v. Director, 239 Md. 704, 211 A.2d 734 (1965); Blann v. Director, 235 Md. 661, 202 A.2d 722 Finally, as was sta......
  • Gray v. Director, Patuxent Institution
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • December 16, 1966
    ...Dr. Boslow's testimony is not inadmissible because it relies in part on the reports of other members of his staff. Murel v. Director, 240 Md. 258, 213 A.2d 576 (1965); Gilliard v. Director, 237 Md. 661, 207 A.2d 650 (1965). The applicant had the right to summon any of the persons whose name......
  • 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