Simmons v. Director, Patuxent Institution, 45
| Decision Date | 23 January 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 45,45 |
| Parties | Charles T. SIMMONS v. DIRECTOR, PATUXENT INSTITUTION. Defective Delinguent |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Before BRUNE, C. J., and HENDERSON, HAMMOND, HORNEY, MARBURY and SYBERT, JJ.
The applicant, who had been sentenced to imprisonment for housebreaking, was found by a jury to be a defective delinquent and he now seeks leave to appeal.
The chief contention is that there was insufficient evidence to support the finding. The applicant was represented by counsel at the hearing. He had a rather long record of offenses as a juvenile and as an adult, including car thefts and breaking and entering. Dr. Boslow, the director, and other staff officials of Patuxent reported that he 'shows definite indications of emotional imbalance of a type which renders him a danger to society'. Applicant was quoted as saying, Dr. Waterman, an independent psychiatrist who examined him at his request, concurred in the findings of the Patuxent staff and recommended commitment. There was sufficient evidence from which the jury could properly find defective delinquency.
The applicant next claims that his commitment constitutes double jeopardy; that the defective delinquent law violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution and the Maryland Declaration of Rights by discriminating against him as a person or as a member of a group, and that the statute permits cruel and unusual punishment by providing for an indeterminate 'sentence'. Similar claims advanced in Eggleston v. State, 209 Md. 504, 121 A.2d 698 (1956), were found to be without merit.
It is further contended that the statute is ex post facto in effect, since the issue of his being a defective delinquent was not raised in the trial for housebreaking, thus depriving him in the subsequent delinquency hearing of the protections which must be afforded to one accused of crime. The short answer is that the statute is civil, not penal, in nature and its end objective is not punishment but treatment. McElroy v. Director of Patuxent Institution, 211 Md. 385, 127 A.2d 380 (1956). Even if applicant's characterization were correct, the prohibition against ex post facto laws relates only to penal statutes.
Applicant maintains that he should not be confined except on definite proof of a specific crime. His contention is answered in Blizzard v. State, 218 Md. 384, 390, 147 A.2d 227 (1958), where it was said that in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. Director, Patuxent Inst.
...351 (1962) (privilege against self-incrimination not applicable; no double jeopardy; and not an ex post facto law); Simmons v. Director, 227 Md. 661, 663, 177 A.2d 409 (1962) (no double jeopardy and not a penal statute so not violative of prohibition against ex post facto laws); Meredith v.......
-
Sas v. State of Maryland
...tests, even if the same concerns prior criminal offenses and convictions and admissions of prior antisocial conduct. Simmons v. Director, 227 Md. 661, 177 A.2d 409 (1962); McDonough v. Director, 229 Md. 626, 183 A.2d 368 (1962); Purks v. State, supra. Extensive hearsay regarding the past so......
-
Davis v. Director, Patuxent Inst.
...Savage v. Director, 5 Md.App. 1, 2-3, 244 A.2d 899, 900, quoting Sas v. Maryland, 4 Cir., 334 F.2d 506, 511, citing Simmons v. Director, 227 Md. 661, 177 A.2d 409. The defendant has no right under the statute to withhold the psychiatrist's report from the court or to exclude it from evidenc......
-
Director of Patuxent Institution v. Daniels
...stated that the Act is fr the protection of society from persons who evidence a propensity toward criminal activity, (Simmons v. Director, 227 Md. 661, 177 A.2d 409 (1962); McElroy v. State, 211 Md. 385, 127 A.2d 380 (1956)); that there is emphasis on confinement and treatment, rather than ......