Washington v. Director, Patuxent Inst., 67

Decision Date08 January 1965
Docket NumberNo. 67,67
Citation237 Md. 311,206 A.2d 244
PartiesMcCoy WASHINGTON v. DIRECTOR, PATUXENT INSTITUTION. Defective Delinquent
CourtMaryland Court of Appeals

Before HAMMOND, HORNEY, MARBURY, SYBERT and OPPENHEIMER, JJ.

HAMMOND, Judge.

This is an application for leave to appeal by McCoy Washington from a finding by a jury in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County that he is a defective delinquent and the order of the court dated June 8, 1964, committing him to the Patuxent Institution.

Washington was convicted of assault and battery on November 21, 1963, and sentenced to a term of not more than three years in the Maryland Reformatory for Men by Judge Moorman. He was then referred to the Patuxent Institution and in a report filed April 8, 1964, was said to be a defective delinquent. Counsel was appointed for him by the court, and there were also obtained for him the services of an independent psychologist, a Sol Charen, who on June 5, 1964, filed his report. It was his opinion that Washington was not a defective delinquent, but the jury found that he was.

In this current application for leave to appeal, Washington relies on six grounds for relief. First is a claim that the applicant through his counsel was denied the opportunity to conduct a voir dire examination of the jury prior to its selection. It is not alleged that he ever sought such an examination or that, if he did, that the trial court abused its discretion as to the questions it asked or refused to ask. The absence of specifies makes the contention meaningless. Next is the contention that there was insufficient evidence to support the finding that the applicant was a defective delinquent. This contention is without merit, as the report by Dr. Boslow of the Patuxent diagnosis and evaluation, recommending him as a defective delinquent, is clearly sufficient to support the verdict of the jury. Laird v. Director, 234 Md. 604, 197 A.2d 261; Cooper v. Director, 234 Md. 622, 198 A.2d 301; and Dickerson v. Director, 235 Md. 668, 202 A.2d 765. The opinion of the applicant's psychologist that he is not a defective delinquent goes to the weight of the evidence and of itself does not show error below. See Faulkner v. Director, 230 Md. 632, 187 A.2d 473, and Silvestri v. Director, 234 Md. 641, 199 A.2d 784.

The applicant's other four claims are: (1) hearsay testimony of the applicant's school records was received from Dr. Boslow through his report; (2) the State was permitted to conduct an...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Johns v. Director, Patuxent Inst.
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • July 2, 1965
    ... ... Director, 236 Md. 623, 203 A.2d 894 (1964); Robinson v. Director, 236 Md. 624, 203 A.2d 907 (1964); Washington ... v. Director, 237 Md. 311, 206 A.2d 244 (1965) and cases cited therein; Daniels v. Director, 238 Md. 80, 82, 206 A.2d 726 (1965) ... ...
  • Gray v. Director, Patuxent Institution
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • December 16, 1966
    ...the staff of the Patuxent Institution, constitutes legally sufficient evidence to support the verdict of the jury. Washington v. Director, 237 Md. 311, 206 A.2d 244 (1965); Montgomery v. Director, Md., 223 A.2d 776 (filed November 17, 1966). Applicant's second and third contentions both go ......
  • Dept. of Health v. Bean
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • February 13, 2008
    ...of other staff, was legally sufficient to support a jury verdict that defendant remain committed); Washington v. Director, Patuxent Inst., 237 Md. 311, 206 A.2d 244 (1965)(holding that a report recommending defendant as a defective delinquent was sufficient evidence to support the jury verd......
  • Hall v. Director, Patuxent Institution
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • February 15, 1967
    ...Muhly v. Director, 234 Md. 624, 198 A.2d 244 (1964); Silvestri v. Director, 234 Md. 641, 199 A.2d 784 (1964); Washington v. Director, 237 Md. 311, 206 A.2d 244 (1965). We have never stated or implied, however, that the jury should be instructed on the weight to be given to evidence of any t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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