Powell v. Md. Dep't of Health

Decision Date28 August 2017
Docket NumberNo. 77,77
PartiesFREDIA POWELL, ET AL. v. MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ET AL.
CourtCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland

Civil Procedure - Mootness - Issue Capable of Repetition, Yet Evading Review. Appellants were criminal defendants who had been found incompetent to stand trial and were committed for treatment at a psychiatric hospital. None of them was admitted to the hospital by the deadline specified in their commitment orders. They collectively brought suit challenging that delay as a violation of the statute authorizing their commitment and of the Maryland Declaration of Rights. However, each of the Appellants had ultimately been admitted to the hospital well before the case reached the Court of Appeals. Although courts ordinarily will not decide a moot issue, the Appellants' challenge would be considered under an exception to the mootness doctrine for cases that raise an issue "capable of repetition, yet evading review."

Criminal Procedure - Commitment of Defendant Found Incompetent to Stand Trial and Dangerous as a Result of a Mental Disorder. When a defendant in a criminal case is alleged to be incompetent to stand trial, the trial court is to determine, pursuant to statute, the competency, dangerousness, and restorability to competence of the defendant. If all three criteria are met, the court may commit the defendant to a psychiatric hospital designated by the Maryland Department of Health for treatment. A failure by the Department to admit the defendant to a designated facility on the timetable specified in the commitment order may be a violation of the order, but is not a violation of the statute itself, which does not require admission on a specific timetable or explicitly authorize the trial court to set a deadline. Maryland Code, Criminal Procedure Article, §3-104 through §3-108.

Due Process - Commitment of Defendant in Criminal Case Found Incompetent to Stand Trial and Dangerous. A defendant in a criminal case may be detained in custody pending trial without violating the defendant's due process liberty interest when detention is justified by important governmental interests such as ensuring the defendant's presence for trial and protecting the public. When a court finds a defendant incompetent to stand trial and dangerous to self or others as a result of a mental disorder, the defendant may not be continued in detention with respect to the criminal case (as opposed to a separate civil commitment) unless, within a reasonable time, the State undertakes efforts to restore the defendant to competence. An unreasonable delay in the transfer of an incompetent defendant who is the subject of a commitment order from pretrial detention to the designated psychiatric hospital violates the defendant's substantive due process rights. Article 24, Maryland Declaration of Rights.

Circuit Court for Baltimore City

Case No. 24-C-16-003484

Barbera, C.J. Greene Adkins McDonald Hotten Getty Raker, Irma S. (Senior Judge, Specially Assigned), JJ.

Opinion by McDonald, J.

Getty, J., dissents.

A criminal prosecution may not proceed against a defendant who is not competent to stand trial. For that reason, a defendant may not be continued in pretrial detention unless the government is taking steps to provide treatment to restore the defendant to competence or to have the defendant civilly committed. Maryland law provides for a trial court to determine whether a defendant is competent, is dangerous to self or others, and, if incompetent, has the potential to be restored to competence. If these criteria are met, the trial court may commit the defendant to a mental health facility designated by Appellee Maryland Department of Health1 ("MDH") for appropriate treatment to restore the defendant to competence. Maryland Code, Criminal Procedure Article ("CP"), §3-104 et seq. This case concerns implementation of that law within constitutional parameters.

MDH and its head, Appellee Secretary of Health,2 have adopted a policy on admission to State psychiatric hospitals to manage the demand for the limited beds available at those facilities. That policy has resulted in the creation of a waiting list for admission to State psychiatric hospitals - a list that has included criminal defendants whohave been found incompetent to stand trial and committed for treatment, including the four Appellants in this case. The Circuit Court for Baltimore City - at least in the four instances spotlighted in this case - has adopted a practice of requiring admission of a defendant to a hospital within one day of the issuance of the commitment order.

In this case, the Circuit Court found each of the Appellants - defendants in separate criminal cases - to be incompetent to stand trial and dangerous. The court committed each of them to a State psychiatric facility pursuant to the statute and ordered their admission within one day of the commitment order. When MDH failed to admit them by that deadline, they collectively brought this action challenging the MDH policy on statutory and constitutional grounds.

We hold that the statute itself does not set a deadline for admission to a psychiatric hospital. Nor does it authorize a circuit court to do so. Accordingly, a delay in admitting a criminal defendant by a deadline set forth in a commitment order does not violate the statute, although it may violate the commitment order. Nevertheless, depending on the circumstances of the particular case, such delay may violate the due process guarantee of the Maryland Declaration of Rights unless the delay is reasonable under the circumstances of the particular case.

IBackground
A. Procedures Concerning Defendants Found Incompetent to Stand Trial Competency Standard

Under the common law, a criminal prosecution could not proceed if the defendant was unable, as a result of a mental or physical disability, to understand the proceedings or to assist in the defense. A criminal defendant in that condition is said to be incompetent to stand trial.3 See Note, Incompetency to Stand Trial, 81 Harv. L. Rev. 454 (1967). That standard has prevailed in Maryland since 1967. Raithel v. State, 280 Md. 291, 297-98 (1977); see also CP §3-101(f) ("'[i]ncompetent to stand trial' means not able: (1) to understand the nature or object of the proceeding; or (2) to assist in one's defense."). Because the prohibition against trying or convicting an incompetent defendant is considered "fundamental to the adversary system of justice," it is also an element of the due process right to a fair trial under the United States Constitution. Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162, 172 (1975). While the State thus has no legitimate interest in criminally prosecuting a defendant who is incompetent to stand trial, it does have an interest inrestoring a defendant to competency for the purpose of resolving the criminal charges. See Allmond v. Dept. of Health & Mental Hygiene, 448 Md. 592, 608-13 (2016).

Trial Court Determination

Under Maryland law, trial courts are charged with determining whether a defendant is in fact incompetent to stand trial and, if so, what to do about it. CP §§3-104 through 3-108. If it appears that a defendant may be incompetent to stand trial (or the defense alleges incompetence), the trial court must determine, from "evidence presented on the record," whether the defendant is in fact competent to stand trial. CP §3-104. Part of the evidence considered by the court may be a report from MDH following its examination of the defendant.

Examination of Defendant for Competence and Dangerousness

To obtain an assessment by MDH, the court may order MDH to examine the defendant and submit a report to the court, the prosecutor, and defense counsel concerning whether the defendant is competent to stand trial. CP §3-105(d)(1). If, upon examination, MDH determines that the defendant is incompetent to stand trial, the report must include a supplementary opinion concerning "whether, because of mental retardation or mental disorder, the defendant would be a danger to self or the person or property of another, if released." CP §3-105(d)(3).

Disposition after Determination of Incompetence

If the court finds that the defendant is incompetent to stand trial, but is not dangerous to self or the person or property of others, the court is to set bail or release the defendant on personal recognizance. CP §3-106(a). The court is then required to hold ahearing at least annually to reconsider the issues of competence and dangerousness. CP §3-106(f).

If, however, the court finds that the defendant is dangerous as well as incompetent, "the court may order the defendant committed to the facility that [MDH] designates until the court finds that: (i) the defendant no longer is incompetent to stand trial; (ii) the defendant no longer is, because of mental retardation or a mental disorder, a danger to self or the person or property of others; or (iii) there is not a substantial likelihood that the defendant will become competent to stand trial in the foreseeable future." CP §3-106(b)(1).4 In other words, the three criteria for commitment and retention of a criminal defendant in a psychiatric hospital under this provision can be understood as incompetence, dangerousness, and restorability. See State v. Ray, 429 Md. 566, 578-79 (2012).

If the court finds that a defendant meets these criteria5 and commits the defendant, the court is to conduct a hearing at least once a year from the commitment date to determine whether the defendant continues to meet the criteria for commitment. CP §3-106(c)(1)(i). The court may hold earlier or additional hearings on its own initiative, uponreceipt of a report from MDH containing new information, or upon motion of a party setting forth new facts or circumstances. CP §3-106(c)(1)(ii)-(iii), (2).

If a defendant remains incompetent to stand trial, the court must eventually decide whether to take other action. If it appears that the defendant remains incompetent and...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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