Schultz v. Director of Patuxent Institution, 38
| Decision Date | 21 February 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 38,38 |
| Citation | 177 A.2d 848,227 Md. 666 |
| Parties | John R. SCHULTZ v. DIRECTOR OF the PATUXENT INSTITUTION. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Before BRUNE, C. J., and HENDERSON, HAMMOND, PRESCOTT, HORNEY, MARBURY and SYBERT, JJ.
This application for leave to appeal is from an order recommitting the applicant to Patuxent Institution after a jury had found him to be a defective delinquent on July 20, 1961.
In 1955 the applicant was found guilty of perverted practice, given a two-year suspended sentence, and placed on probation for three years. The following year he was convicted of housebreaking and given a two-year sentence. He was admitted to Patuxent on March 3, 1956. On January 27, 1957, he was found to be a defective delinquent by the Criminal Court of Baltimore. The present application arises out of a request for redetermination.
The first point raised by counsel appointed for the applicant is that the lower court erred in permitting Dr. Boslow and Dr. Manne to express their several opinions that the defendant was a defective delinquent. It is argued that to permit these witnesses to testify as to the ultimate issue in the case usurped the function of the jury. But under the statute, Code (1961 Supp.), Art. 31B, sec. 7, at least three persons, on behalf of the institution, were required to examine the applicant, and to 'determine whether in their opinion, or in the opinion of a majority of them, the said person is or is not a defective delinquent.' They were further required to state their findings in a written report addressed to the court. As we pointed out in Fairbanks v. Director, etc., 226 Md. 661, 663, 173 A.2d 913, the report itself is admissible in evidence, even though it may contain the reports and findings of others. See also Ambrose v. Director, etc., 224 Md. 656, 658, 167 A.2d 103; Queen v. Director, etc., 226 Md. 664, 665, 174 A.2d 351, and Purks v. State, 226 Md. 43, 47, 171 A.2d 726. That the persons making the report may testify in person is implicit in the statute, and the same procedure is indicated in proceedings for redetermination under section 10.
The applicant asserts that the court erred in refusing three requested instructions to the effect that (1) the jury should only consider the fact of his conviction for perverted practices 'in the light of its bearing on the issue of whether or not the defendant is a defective delinquent.' We find no error. The jury was entitled to consider the nature of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Williams
... ... , J.) ruled that a psychologist on the staff of Patuxent Institution (Patuxent), though qualified as an expert ... Thus, the State cites McDonough v. Director, 229 Md. 626, 634, 183 A.2d 368 (1962), as 'approv(ing) ... Finally, in Schultz ... Page 184 ... v. Director, 227 Md. 666, 177 A.2d ... ...
-
McDonough v. Director of Patuxent Institution
...226 Md. 43, 171 A.2d 726; Fairbanks v. Director, 226 Md. 661, 173 A.2d 913; Queen v. Director, 226 Md. 664, 174 A.2d 351; Schultz v. Director, 227 Md. 666, 177 A.2d 848. As to Mr. Manne's testimony, we think that it was admissible under the Queen case, just Petitioner makes a bare allegatio......
-
McCubbin v. Director, Patuxent Institution, 114
...to preparation of a report by the Institution have been found applicable in redetermination proceedings under § 10. Schultz v. Director, 227 Md. 666, 177 A.2d 848 (1962). Similarly, the discovery provisions of § 8(b) have been held to be available in redetermination hearings as well as in o......
-
Faulkner v. Director of Patuxent Institution
...under (6) it is applicant's claim that the report required by Code (1961 Cum. Supp.), Art. 31 B, § 7(a), is hearsay, see Schultz v. Director, 227 Md. 666, 177 A.2d 848; Simmons v. Director, 227 Md. 661, 177 A.2d 409, where we held such reports admissible due to the statute. Of course, Art. ......