Pouncey v. State
Decision Date | 19 September 1983 |
Docket Number | No. 135,135 |
Citation | 297 Md. 264,465 A.2d 475 |
Parties | Beverly Ann POUNCEY v. STATE of Maryland. |
Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Michael R. Braudes, Asst. Public Defender, Baltimore (Alan H. Murrell, Public Defender, Baltimore, on the brief), for appellant.
Richard B. Rosenblatt, Asst. Atty. Gen., Baltimore (Stephen H. Sachs, Atty. Gen., Baltimore, on the brief), for appellee.
Argued before MURPHY, C.J., and SMITH, ELDRIDGE, COLE, DAVIDSON, RODOWSKY and COUCH, JJ.
The issue before us is whether a defendant in a criminal case properly can be found both guilty of a crime and insane at the time of its commission.
Appellant was charged with first degree murder of her five-year-old son. She interposed pleas of not guilty and insane at the time of the commission of the crime. The evidence at the nonjury trial in the Circuit Court for Howard County disclosed that the appellant drowned her son because she believed that the devil was pursuing him and that the only way to prevent him from going to hell was to kill him. The evidence further disclosed that the appellant was legally insane at the time the crime was committed. On July 1, 1982, the court (Nissell, J.) found the appellant both guilty of first degree murder and legally insane at the time of the offense. The appellant was thereafter committed to the State Department of Health and Mental Hygiene for evaluation and commitment pursuant to Maryland Code (1982), § 12-110 of the Health-General Article. She appealed to the Court of Special Appeals, claiming that the verdicts of guilty and insane were mutually inconsistent and that she was entitled to the entry of a not guilty verdict on the murder charge. We granted certiorari prior to decision by the intermediate appellate court to consider the important issue raised in the case.
The origin and development of the insanity defense has been the subject of considerable scholarly and judicial attention. See, e.g., Young v. State, 14 Md.App. 538, 288 A.2d 198 (1972). In Maryland, the defense is defined by statute and court rule. In Code (1982), § 12-101(d) of the Health-General Article, "insane" is defined as "not responsible for criminal conduct under the rule set forth in § 12-107 of this title." Section 12-107 identifies the test of responsibility for criminal conduct:
Maryland Rule 731 prescribes the method by which insanity may be placed at issue in a criminal case. Subsection a provides:
Accord: § 12-108(a) of the Health-General Article. Once properly entered, a special verdict on the insanity defense must be rendered. See § 12-108(b) and (c).
In Langworthy v. State, 284 Md. 588, 399 A.2d 578 (1979), we held that a person found guilty of the crime charged, yet successful in asserting an insanity defense, could appeal from the guilty verdict. Necessary to our decision was a finding that a guilty verdict is not inconsistent with a special verdict of insanity. In that case, as here, there was a general plea of not guilty and a plea alleging insanity at the time of the commission of the offenses. We there set forth the effect of a guilty verdict on the general plea of not guilty and a special verdict that the accused was insane at the time of the crime. We said:
" 284 Md. at 594, 399 A.2d 578. 1
In Langworthy, the claim was made that the finding of insanity was the functional equivalent of an acquittal. That argument had prevailed at the intermediate appellate court. In reversing, we said:
"The Court of Special Appeals dismissed Langworthy's appeal, holding that 'a defendant, except under rare circumstances not here apposite has no right to take an appeal from an acquittal.' Langworthy v. State, 39 Md.App. at 559-560 . The fallacy in this reasoning is that Langworthy was found guilty of rape, and the dismissal of the appeal precluded appellate review of that conviction. As we have seen, the existing statutory scheme patently contemplates that there be first a determination of guilt or innocence under the general plea....
Thus, in the clearest possible terms, Langworthy disposes of the contention that a criminal defendant cannot be found both guilty and insane. 2
Appellant nonetheless seeks to avoid the effect of Langworthy. She argues that because "she was ultimately found insane, the finding of guilt...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Treece v. State
...who "successfully" pleads not criminally responsible is subject to the stigma of a criminal conviction, Pouncey v. State, 297 Md. 264, 268-270, 465 A.2d 475, 478 (1983), although he or she may not be subject to all of the consequences that would otherwise flow therefrom. See, e.g., Ford, 30......
-
Anderson v. Department of Health and Mental Hygiene
...supra, 107 U.S. at 229, 2 S.Ct. at 450. Under the pertinent provisions of Maryland law as construed by this Court in Pouncey v. State, 297 Md. 264, 465 A.2d 475 (1983), and Langworthy v. State, 284 Md. 588, 399 A.2d 578 (1979), it is clear that Anderson's confinement in a state mental insti......
-
Erdman v. State, 1535
...cases, as in all criminal cases, carries the ultimate burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. See generally Pouncey v. State, 297 Md. at 266-68, 465 A.2d 475. Indeed, only after having been convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of the crimes charged, does......
-
Shell v. State
...expressed herein. 1 The "not guilty by reason of insanity" terminology is no longer appropriate in this State. See Pouncey v. State, 297 Md. 264, 465 A.2d 475 (1983); Langworthy v. State, 284 Md. 588, 399 A.2d 578 (1979).2 The defendant Shell had never been expressly charged with simple ass......
-
Current Colorado Law on the Insanity Defense
...v. Brawner, 471 F.2d 969 (D.C. Cir. 1972). 5. The Maryland Supreme Court effectively abolished the insanity defense in Pouncey v. State, 465 A.2d 475 (MD 1983) (finding of insanity not tantamount to absence of mens rea or inconsistent with general intent to commit crime). Utah is cited by m......