Strawderman v. State
| Decision Date | 14 August 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 207,207 |
| Citation | 4 Md.App. 689,244 A.2d 888 |
| Parties | Arthur Edward STRAWDERMAN v. STATE of Maryland. |
| Court | Court of Special Appeals of Maryland |
Fred Oken, Asst. Atty. Gen.; with whom were Francis B. Burch, Atty. Gen.; Charles E. Moylan, Jr., State's Atty., and Howard L. Cardin, Asst. State's Atty. for Baltimore City, on the brief, for appellee.
Before MURPHY, C. J., and ANDERSON, MORTON, ORTH and THOMPSON, JJ.
The appellant was found guilty at a court trial in the Criminal
Court of Baltimore of robbery with a deadly weapon and assault. He was sentenced to imprisonment for a term of 15 years on the robbery conviction and for a term of 2 years on the assault conviction to run consecutively with the robbery sentence. His appeal from the judgments requires a construction of the provisions of Chapter 709, Acts of 1967 which are codified in Md.Code (1968 Repl.Vol.) as Art. 59, §§ 7-12, title-'Lunatics and Insane', subtitle-'Insanity as a Defense in Criminal Cases.' Chapter 709 repealed[244 A.2d 890] former §§ 7-12 of Art. 59 and enacted new §§ 7-12 in lieu thereof. By § 2 of Chapter 709 its provisions were made applicable to all cases tried or scheduled for trial on and after 1 June 1967 and we have held that they were not to be retroactively applied. League v. State, 1 Md.App. 681, 685, 232 A.2d 828. As the appellant's case was tried on 20 June 1967, the provisions of Chapter 709 were applicable to it. Hereinafter §§ 7-12 of Art. 59 as were in effect prior to 1 June 1967 will be referred to as the 'old' sections and as are in effect on and after that date as the 'new' sections.
Under new § 7 the test for competency of an accused to stand trial is 'whether such person is unable to understand the nature or the object of the proceeding against him or to assist in his defense.'
By new § 7 the lower court shall determine whether the accused is competent to stand trial 'upon testimony and evidence presented on the record', whenever prior to or during trial, the accused alleges he is so incompetent or it so appears to the court. The court for good cause shown and after affording the accused an opportunity to be heard on his own behalf or through counsel may pass an order requesting an examination of the accused's competency to stand trial by the Department of Mental Hygiene and a full report of the findings shall be forwarded to the court, the State's Attorney and to counsel for the defendant. 'If the court after receiving testimony and evidence determines that the defendant is competent to stand trial within
the meaning of this section (new § 7), the trial shall commence as soon as practicable or, if already commenced, shall continue. The court may in its discretion at any time during the trial and until the verdict is rendered, reconsider the question of competency of the defendant to stand trial as otherwise provided in this section.' 1
The test of responsibility for criminal conduct is set forth in new § 9(a):
This, in every substantial detail and almost word for word, is the American Law Institute test contained in § 4.01 of the Model Penal Code. 2 It replaces, in Maryland, the test of responsibility
for criminal conduct previously followed-that enunciated in M'Naghten's Case, 8 Eng.Rep. 718 (1843)-the ability of the accused to distinguish between right and wrong and to understand the nature and consequences of his acts as applied to himself. Bergin v. State, 1 Md.App. 74, 227 A.2d 357.
The procedure for raising the defense that an accused was not responsible for his criminal conduct is provided in new § 9(b):
3
It also provides that when such plea of insanity has been entered the court '* * * shall have full power and authority to order an examination of the mental condition of such person by the Department of Mental Hygiene.' 4
We think that Chapter 709 of the Acts of 1967 establishes a clearly different test for competency to stand trial from that which it establishes for responsibility for criminal conduct and that the procedure for determining competency to stand trial is clearly different from that to determine responsibility for criminal conduct. The sole issue of competency to stand trial is not raised by a plea 5 and its determination is a matter resting exclusively in the court. Of course, in a jury trial, evidence with regard to it should be received out of the presence of the jury. On the other hand, the defense that the accused was not responsible for his criminal conduct must be raised by a plea alleging that he was insane at the time of the commission of the alleged crime. The plea shall be filed at the time of pleading to the warrant, indictment or information, unless the court for good cause shown allows a later plea. It shall be made in writing. 6
Under the law as it existed prior to 1 June 1967 questions as to which party-the prosecution or the defendant-had the '(1) a man is presumed to have been sane and responsible for his acts at the time he committed a crime until there is adduced proof of his inability 'to distinguish between right and wrong and understand the nature and consequences of his acts as applied to himself' (the M'Naghten rule) sufficient to raise a doubt as to his sanity as defined in the minds of reasonable men ('Evidence of some undefined mental disorder or instability is insufficient proof to overcome the presumption of sanity'), and (2) when there has been offered proof of insanity so defined sufficient to overcome the initial presumption of the sanity of the accused the State must prove sanity, as well as the other elements of the offense charged beyond a reasonable doubt.'
burden of proof on the issue of insanity and as to which degree of proof-beyond a reasonable doubt or preponderance of the evidence-should be applied were first resolved in Bradford v. State, 234 Md. 505, 200 A.2d 150, 17 A.L.R.3d 134. In Jenkins v. State, 238 Md. 451, 209 A.2d 616, the Court stated that the holdings in Bradford were:
This Court applied the rules of law enunciated in Bradford, where there was a court trial, to a jury trial in McCracken v. State, 2 Md.App. 716, 237 A.2d 87. We said at 720, 237 A.2d at 89:
'(W)e think it clear that it is now established that the trial court should determine as a preliminary matter of law whether there has been offered evidence of insanity (under the M'Naghten rule as to cases tried prior to June 1, 1967 or under the provisions of chapter 709 of the Acts of 1967 as to cases tried on or after June 1, 1967) sufficient, if believed, to raise the question in the minds of reasonable men whether the defendant is or is not insane. Only when the court finds that there is such sufficient evidence are the issues of insanity at the time of the commission of the offense and at the time of the trial to be submitted to the jury. We think it logically follows that it is preferable that such evidence be adduced See also White v. State, 3 Md.App. 167, 171, 238 A.2d 278. Inasmuch as insanity, as defined in new § 9(a), is not the test in determining competency to stand trial under new § 7, the rationales of Bradford and McCracken are not apposite to such determination. With regard to competency to stand tral under new § 7, we think that the court, in whom the final determination of the matter rests, must determine beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is able to understand the nature or object of the proceeding against him and to assist in his defense. But we think that the rationales of Bradford and McCracken, although not decided under Chapter 709, Acts of 1967, are applicable to a determination of insanity as defined in new § 9(a). Therefore the rule as to cases tried on or after 1 June 1967 is:
out of the presence of the jury to avoid any possible prejudice and to obviate the necessity, when the evidence is found to be insufficient, of instructing the jury that the issue is not before them and that they are to disregard such evidence in their deliberations of whether the State has proved the commission of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Of course, if the trial court finds the evidence to be sufficient, it should then be introduced before the jury with the proper instructions.'
(1) a man is presumed to have been responsible for criminal conduct and sane at the time of such conduct...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Trimble v. State
...then was allowed to produce evidence of insanity. See also Fowler v. State, 237 Md. 508, 206 A.2d 802 (1965); Strawderman v. State, 4 Md.App. 689, 244 A.2d 888 (1968).2 This is the standard for insanity under Maryland Code (1984) § 12-107 of the Health-General Article. This section states i......
-
Bremer v. State
...We said, in Sweeney, 6 Md.App. at 438, 252 A.2d 9, that such defense, once doubt has been raised as to sanity, see Strawderman v. State, 4 Md.App. 689, 698, 244 A.2d 888, is not determinable apart from the trial on the merits of guilt or innocence under the general issue plea, but is a matt......
-
Evans v. State
...regard. Bremer v. State, 18 Md.App. 291, 315-316, 307 A.2d 503; Dennis v. State, 13 Md.App. 564, 569, 284 A.2d 256: Strawderman v. State, 4 Md.App. 689, 698, 244 A.2d 888. We have held that an instruction should not be given on the subject of self-defense where the evidence, by whomsoever p......
-
Young v. State
...263 A.2d 609, 616; Millard v. State, 8 Md.App. 419, 261 A.2d 227; Greenleaf v. State, 7 Md.App. 575, 256 A.2d 552; Strawderman v. State, 4 Md.App. 689, 244 A.2d 888. It was careful to spell out the applicability of the new test. It further enacted by § 2 of ch. 709 'That the provisions of t......