Young v. State

Citation14 Md.App. 538,288 A.2d 198
Decision Date02 March 1972
Docket NumberNo. 79,79
PartiesWayne Stephen YOUNG v. STATE of Maryland.
CourtCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland

William F. Mosner, Baltimore, for appellant.

Clarence W. Sharp, Asst. Atty. Gen., with whom were Francis B. Burch, Atty. Gen., Milton B. Allen, State's Atty., Howard L. Cardin and Arrie W. Davis, Asst. State's Attys., for Baltimore City, on the brief, for appellee.

Argued before MORTON, ORTH and GILBERT, JJ.

ORTH, Judge.

I.

An inhabitant of the State of Maryland, as a part of the legacy of the common law of England bequeathed him by the People, 1 is not responsible for his criminal conduct if he was insane at the time he committed the crime. 2 Blackstone in Chapter II of Book the Fourth of his Commentaries on the Laws of England, speaking of persons capable of crimes, asserts at 24, 'In criminal cases, therefore, idiots and lunatics are not chargeable for their own acts, if committed when under these incapacities; no, not even for treason itself.' 3 The 'defense of insanity or lunancy on behalf of one charged with a crime, offense or misdemeanor' received statutory recognition in this jurisdiction in 1826. Ch. 197, § 1, Acts 1826. By 1889 the provisions of the statute were considered as having 'long been part of the law of the State.' Devilbiss v. Bennett, 70 Md. 554, 556, 17 A. 502. 'They provide a mode by which lunatics, and insane persons when tried for or charged with a commission of crime shall be humanely dealt with and treated. They recognize the rule which prevails in all civilized nations that such unfortunate persons ought not to be subject to the same penalties or treatment as are justly meted out to those who are sane.' Ibid.

The kind and degree of unsoundness of mind could not be determined as a matter of law before pardons were issued as a matter of course upon a verdict that the accused committed the crime while mad, for prior thereto all depended upon the king's 'grace.' 2 Pollock & Maitland, 484 (2d ed. 1899). When the law began to notice insanity as a defense, Bracton, Chief Justiciary in the middle of the thirteenth century, define a madman as 'one who does not know what he is doing, who lacks in mind and reason and is not far removed from the brutes.' 4 Twenty-five years after Coke quoted Bracton's definition in Beverley's Case, he classified non compos mentis into the born idiot, the madman-one who 'wholly loseth his memorie and understanding,' and the lunatic-one who has lucid intervals but is non compos mentis during periods when 'he hath not understanding.' 2 Co. Litt. 247 a (Rev. ed. 1823) as cited in Perkins, supra, at 851. In any event, it was in 1843 in Daniel M'Naghten's Case, 10 Clark & Fin. 200, 8 Eng.Rep. 718 that the law as it had been developing for hundreds of years was crystallized. M'Naghten was tried on a charge of murdering one Edward Drummond. Lord Chief Tindal in his charge to the jury said:

'The question to be determined is, whether at the time the act in question was committed, the prisoner had or had not use of his understanding, so as to know that he was doing a wrong or wicked act. If the jurors should be of opinion that the prisoner was not sensible, at the time he committed it, that he was violating the laws both of God and man, then he would be entitled to a verdict in his favour: but if, on the contrary, they were of opinion that when he committed the act he was in a sound state of mind, then their verdict must be against him.'

The jury returned a verdict of not guilty, on the ground of insanity. The verdict and the question of the nature and extent of the unsoundness of mind which would excuse the commission of a felony of this sort was made the subject of debate in the House of Lords and it was determined to take the opinion of the Judges on the law governing such cases. Mr. Justice Maule and Lord Chief Justice Tindal appeared and answered five questions propounded to them. The opinion of the Judges was fully approved by the House of Lords and laid down as the settled law. It was so recognized by our Court of Appeals in 1888 in Spencer v. State, 69 Md. 28, 13 A. 809. Its understanding of the law as settled by M'Naghten was 'that notwithstanding a party may do an act, being in itself criminal, under the influence of an insane delusion, with a view of redressing or revenging some supposed grievance, or injury, or of promoting some public good, he is nevertheless punishable, if he had the capacity to distinguish between right and wrong, and knew at the time that he was acting contrary to law. Therefore, if the party accused be conscious that the act was one that he ought not to do, that act being contrary to law, he is punishable under the law.' At 38, 13 A. at 813. The so-called 'M'Naghten-Spencer' test of responsibility for criminal conduct came to be expressed as whether the accused had the capacity and reason sufficient to enable him to distinguish between right and wrong and understand the nature and consequences of his acts as applied to himself. Bradford v. State, 234 Md. 505, 510, 200 A.2d 150; Dubs v. State, 2 Md.App. 524, 534, 235 A.2d 764. The test, although subject to vehement criticism, withstood constant attacks on its constitutionality and propriety. See Leland v. Oregon, 343 U.S. 790, 72 S.Ct. 1002, 96 L.Ed. 1302; Armstead v. State, 227 Md. 73, 175 A.2d 24; League v. State, 1 Md.App. 681, 232 A.2d 828. Both the Court of Appeals and this Court felt that any modification of the rule was a prerogative of the legislature and not the courts and rejected pleas to modify or abandon it. The legislature responded in 1967. By ch. 709, Acts 1967, it supplanted the M'Naghten-Spencer test with the American Law Institute test contained in § 4.01 of the Model Penal Code. Codified as Code, Art. 59, § 9(a) it provided:

'A defendant is not responsible for criminal conduct and shall be found insane at the time of the commission of the alleged crime if, at the time of such conduct as a result of mental disease or defect, he lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law. As used in this section, the terms 'mental disease or defect' do not include an abnormality manifested only by repeated criminal or otherwise antisocial conduct.'

The legislature did not define 'mental disease or defect,' but it did expressly exclude therefrom 'an abnormality manifested only by repeated criminal or otherwise antisocial conduct.' See Avey v. State, 9 Md.App. 227, 240-241, 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 this Act shall be applicable to all cases tried or scheduled for trial on and after the effective date of this Act.' The effective date of the Act was established as 1 June 1967 by § 5. These provisions were a clear legislative expression that the Act apply to cases tried on or after 1 June 1967, and a fortiori, not to cases tried before 1 June 1967. We so stated in League v. State, supra, 1 Md.App. at 685, 232 A.2d 828. In Stokes v. State, 2 Md.App. 385, 234 A.2d 620, cert. den., 248 Md. 735, we refused to depart from our holding in League in the face of the argument that the language of § 2 did not preclude giving retroactive effect to the Act: 'that had the Legislature intended non-retroactivity, the word 'only' would have been employed,' and that, therefore, the Act should be construed as retroactive. We observed, at 387, 234 A.2d at 621: 'Such a construction, in our opinion, is strained, so-phistic, and one not intended by the Legislature.' We again affirmed our position in McCracken v. State, 2 Md.App. 716, 718, 237 A.2d 87.

The new test of responsibility for criminal conduct was in effect for three years. Then in 1970, with none of the fanfare which surrounded the abolition of the venerable common law test, the legislature changed the new test. It came about by the repeal 'in its entirety' of Code, Art. 59, title, 'Lunatics and Insane', and the enactment to stand in its place of a new Art. 59 under the new title 'Mental Hygiene.' Acts 1970, ch. 407, § 2. The test for responsibility for criminal conduct was set out in § 25(a) of the new Article. The test was the same as the 1967 test with one exception; the terms 'mental disease or defect' were replaced by the term 'mental disorder.' This exception was of the utmost significance, however, in the light of other provisions of the new Act. Section 3(f) defined 'mental disorder' to mean 'mental illness or mental retardation or any other form of behavioral or emotional illness resulting from any psychiatric or neurological disorder.' Section 3(g) defined 'mental illness' to mean 'any mental disorder, other than mental retardation, which so substantially impairs the mental or emotional functioning of an individual as to make it necessary or davisable for the welfare of the person so suffering or for the safety of the persons or property of others that the mentally ill person receive care and treatment.' It provided further: 'The term shall replace the words 'insane,' 'insanity,' 'lunacy,' 'mentally sick,' 'mental disease,' 'unsound mind' and similar words as they appear in the statutes of the State of Maryland but does not include mental retardation.' Section 3(h) defined 'mental retardation' to mean 'a degree of subnormality of intellectual development expected to be of life duration which reduces the individual's capability to manage himself or his affairs.' It provided further: 'The term shall replace the terms 'defective,' 'mental defective,' 'idiot,' 'feebleminded' and 'moron' as they may appear in the statutes of the State of Maryland.' We see nothing in § 25(a) to indicate that the term 'mental disorder' was clearly intended to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
28 cases
  • Tyrone W. v. DANIELLE R., 6448
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • December 3, 1999
    ......The action was filed with the consent of the Talbot County State's Attorney's Office. 2 It contained a "Notice to Defendant" advising Tyrone of his right to have the issue of paternity tried by a jury and ...Young v. State, 14 Md.App. 538, 552-53, 288 A.2d 198 (1972) (in determining retroactivity vel non of legislation, it is the intent of the legislature in ......
  • Bremer v. State, 583
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • July 6, 1973
    ......test, he did not know what it was. Bremer moved to strike his testimony. At a bench conference the court pointed out that in the Maryland test 'mental disorder' was substituted for 'mental disease or defect.' See Truesdale v. State, 16 Md.App. 260, 295 A.2d 808; Young v. State, 14 Md.App. 538, 288 A.2d 198; Sherrill v. State, 14 Md.App. 146, 286 A.2d 528. .         By the provisions of Code, Art. 59, § 25(a), 'A defendant is not responsible for criminal conduct and shall be found insane at the time of the commission of the alleged crime if, at the time ......
  • Kelly v. State, 253
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • January 5, 1973
    ...... Carter v. State, 15 Md.App. 242, 289 A.2d 837 (1972); Conway v. State, 5 Md.App. 198, 289 A.2d 862 (1972); Young v. State, 14 Md.App. 538, 288 A.2d 198 (1972); King v. State, 14 Md.App. 385, 287 A.2d 52 (1972); Metz v. State, 9 Md.App. 15, 262 A.2d 331 (1970).         The evidence produced by the State in the instant case consisted primarily of the testimony of Thelma Jean Banks, and the chemist, ......
  • England v. State, 787
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • May 28, 1974
    ...... If jury instructions when read as a whole, clearly set forth the applicable law, there is no reversible error. Burko v. State, 19 Md.App. 645, 313 A.2d 864 (1974); Fowler v. State, 18 Md.App. 37, 305 A.2d 200 (1973); Kable v. State, 17 Md.App. 16, 299 A.2d 493 (1973); Young v. State, 14 Md.App. 538, 288 A.2d 198 (1972); Gordon v. State, 14 Md.App. 245, 286 A.2d 833 (1972); Shotkosky v. State, 8 Md.App. 492, 261 A.2d 171 (1970). We perceive no error. .         Judgments affirmed. . --------------- . . 1 Md.Ann.Code art. 27, § 461 provides in pertinent ......
  • 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