Opinion ID: 1989296
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Admissibility of Defendant's Juvenile Record and Institutional History

Text: Collins claims the trial judge erred in permitting the jury to consider, during the sentencing phase, evidence of his juvenile record and later institutional history. [14] These records were part of a presentence investigation report which was admitted into evidence after certain redactions were made by the trial judge. Counsel's primary objection to the references of prior juvenile offenses was that there was no evidence to support these offenses because appellant's juvenile file had been destroyed. Therefore, the evidence was allegedly unreliable, and neither probative nor relevant. The institutional infractions included being out of bounds, lateness and disobedience which were part of a closed parole file. Counsel argued that these general offenses reflect badly on him without him really having an opportunity to redress it. The specifics of these infractions were not detailed in the report. Without an explanation of these terms [in the PSI] and Appellant's specific conduct, the jury was left to believe that appellant, even when institutionalized, cannot be controlled. Article 27, § 413(c)(iv) expressly provides that any presentence investigation report is admissible in a capital sentencing proceeding. In addition, Article 41, § 4-609(d) provides in pertinent part: In any case in which the death penalty or imprisonment for life without the possibility of parole is requested under Article 27, § 412, a presentence investigation ... shall be completed by the Division of Parole and Probation, and shall be considered by the court or jury before whom the separate sentencing proceeding is conducted under Article 27, § 412 or § 413. In Huffington v. State, 304 Md. 559, 577-78, 500 A.2d 272, 281 (1985), cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1023, 106 S.Ct. 3315, 92 L.Ed.2d 745 (1986), we ruled that the prior institutional history of a defendant is admissible in a capital sentencing proceeding as part of the presentence investigation report. It is admissible because the convicted person's reputation, past offenses, health, habits ... are appropriate considerations for the sentencing authority in a death penalty case. Id. at 577, 500 A.2d at 281, quoting Bartholomey v. State, 267 Md. 175, 193-94, 297 A.2d 696, 706, remanded, 408 U.S. 938, 92 S.Ct. 2870, 33 L.Ed.2d 759 (1972) (citations omitted). Huffington's presentence investigation report noted that he was cited for 1) refusing to obey a direct order, and 2) creating a security threat. Collins contends Huffington is distinguishable from the present case because the report there contained one sentence explaining the facts surrounding each infraction. We disagree. The legislative mandate of Art. 27, § 413 regarding admissibility of evidence is clear. The only limit placed upon the admissibility of presentence investigation reports is in reference to any recommendation as to sentence contained in the report. Even if we were to construe the institutional history as other evidence under Art. 27, § 413(c)(v), we note that Collins had a fair opportunity to rebut or explain the circumstances concerning the institutional infractions for the jury. We find no merit in Collins' arguments regarding the admission of the appellant's institutional history. Similarly, the information about Collins' juvenile record was properly admitted and reliable. It is the defendant's burden to establish an error in the PSI. The fact that hypothetically there may have been a mistake is insufficient to support a finding of reversible error.