Court Opinion

ID: 9707914
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 02:24:39.804271+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:39.892005
License: Public Domain

Henderson, J.,
filed the following dissenting opinion, in which Bruñe, C. J., and Hammond, J., concurred.
We are unable to agree with the reasoning of the majority of the Court in this case and we think the result both unjust and unsound. A relatively minor objection to the opinion is that it leaves unanswered a question which should be answered. A more serious objection is that it decides the case on a question not presented and on a proposition not advocated by either side. A still more serious objection is that the theory of law upon which the case is thus decided seems quite erroneous.
The opinion correctly states that the appeal presents only three questions: first, whether the evidence was legally sufficient to permit the finding that the defendant was sane at the time of the offense; second, whether the defendant has been denied a speedy trial; and third, whether the trial court erred in imposing sentence without allowing credit for time spent by the defendant in jail or in mental institutions while awaiting trial. Only the first of these questions is decided, and we agree with the majority on that question that there was medical testimony which, if believed, was sufficient to warrant a finding *311that the defendant was sane at the time of the offense. It is not our province to pass on its credibility.
With regard to the second question, just why the appellant was not entitled to an answer to his contention that he was denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial, under Art. 21 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights, does not appear. It is generally recognized that where denial of a speedy trial is established an accused is entitled to a discharge or dismissal. See 22A C.J.S., Criminal Law, § 468. It would seem that he could properly press this point, even if the verdict of insane now precluded a guilty verdict and sentence, as the opinion seems to hold.
Of course, if the conviction and sentence are nullified, it may well be that the allowance or disallowance of time spent in jail, or in mental institutions awaiting trial, would be premature.
It is our view that we should confine ourselves on this appeal to the questions posed by the appellant and his counsel. If the appellant is capable of appealing at all, it would seem to follow that he is capable of choosing the grounds on which he relies and of abandoning other possible grounds. If, as the opinion states, “for reasons best known to himself, the defendant seems to fear the risk of a new trial,” we should not compel him to assume that risk. Surely, the fear is not irrational or unreasonable. If and when he is brought to trial again, he might well be convicted of murder in the first degree and sentenced to death. If, as the majority holds, the verdict and sentence are nullities, it would appear that a claim of double jeopardy would be fruitless. (We shall revert to this later.) In a second trial years later witnesses vital to the defense might conceivably be dead or unavailable. It is our view that he is entitled to stand upon that verdict and sentence, and that this Court should not deprive him of it, sua sponte.
The appellant was indicted on June 5, 1958. He pleaded not guilty; and on June 17, 1958, through his then counsel, retained by him, he added a plea that he was insane at the time of the alleged crime (“insane then”). He was then sent to a State mental institution for examination and treatment, if necessary. In January, 1960, he was transferred to the new Clifton T. Perkins State Hospital, where he remained until July, *3121962. In January, 1962, the staff at Perkins found that he was capable of standing trial, and the Superintendent so certified to the trial court. Delay ensued. Rowe was transferred to a jail to await trial in July, 1962, but was not tried until February, 1963. Meanwhile, following a habeas corpus hearing in a different court, the trial court appointed new counsel of Rowe’s selection to replace his original counsel, with whom Rowe had become dissatisfied. He soon became dissatisfied with his new counsel also and sought his removal. The trial court refused to make a further change in counsel.
On the day of the trial, and out of the presence of the jury, the court conducted a hearing to determine whether the appellant was capable of standing trial. The sole witness was the Superintendent of Perkins. His opinion, based upon a brief interview with Rowe that day and upon his previous knowledge of Rowe for about two and a half years at Perkins, was that he was competent to stand trial. His testimony drew a very clear distinction between the different tests by which to determine sanity to stand trial, vel non, and sanity or insanity as regards criminal responsibility. Sanity to stand trial he determined (properly, we think) by the standard stated in Code (1957), Art. 59, Sec. 9, whether Rowe was “at the time of such inquiry insane or lunatic — or of such mental incapacity as to prevent such person from properly conducting his * * * defense or advising as to the conduct of his * * * defense * * He expressly declined to express a view as to Rowe’s then responsibility under the McNaghten rule, as he had not examined him with that test in mind. On the basis of the Superintendent’s testimony, the court found that Rowe was capable of standing trial. At this point, Rowe’s court-appointed counsel, whose position must indeed have been most difficult, proceeded to file an additional plea that the defendant was insane at the time of trial (“insane now”), despite Rowe’s previous protestations that he was not insane. The case then went to trial.
By what process of reasoning can we reconcile a judicial finding that the accused is able to understand the charges against him and assist in the conduct of his defense, and the action of his court-appointed counsel in forcing him, against his will, to *313abandon his contention of “justification,” and to adhere to the plea of insanity then filed by his prior counsel, and in raising the additional defense of insane now? The accused had previously told the court he did not wish to plead insanity, and had been informed by the court in no uncertain terms that he could not address the court except through the same court-appointed attorney. Rowe had consistently maintained that he was sane and was ready to stand trial, and there is nothing to indicate any change in his position. With due regard to the difficulties of the situation, we think the court committed reversible error in accepting the plea of insane now without (so far as appears) any further inquiry from the accused, after the court had found him capable of standing trial and hence of advising as to the conduct of his defense. Cf. Lynch v. Overholser, 369 U. S. 705. But the question is not before us, because the accused, like Hamlet (who was not mad by English standards), prefers to “rather bear those ills we have/Than fly to others that we know not of.” He emphatically does not want a reversal on any ground that calls for a new trial. The majority opinion reaches out to decide that the verdict and sentence are nullified by the finding of insane now, although the question is not a ground of appeal in this Court, and to decide it contrary to the views expressed by both present counsel for the accused and the Attorney General. This curious result is reached by professed reliance upon Code (1957), Art. 5, Sec. 16, and (with the introduction “cf.”) upon Maryland Rule 756 g.
To support this curious result the majority cites Berman v. Warden, 232 Md. 642, at 646; Wolfe v. State, 218 Md. 449, at 455; and Code (1957), Art. 5, § 16, adds “cf. Maryland Rule 756 g,” and closes its array of authority with “And see Giles v. State, 229 Md. 370, 387, * * * where, in commenting on the effect of Rule 756 g, reference was made in a footnote to Art. 5, § 16.” The majority opinion does not trouble to elucidate the matter further, and we think the authorities referred to fall far short of supporting its action.
We are quite unable to detect the relevance of the Giles case. In it this Court declined to apply Rule 756 g, even though urged by the defendant to do so. The footnote cited is a mere *314reference to § 16 of Art. 5 of the Code and offers nothing to show either its meaning or its pertinence to this case.
In Berman v. Warden, supra, which overruled the actual holding of Price v. State, 159 Md. 491, we commented that the result reached by the majority in Price on a jurisdictional ground might “perhaps” have been reached “upon the doctrine of plain error, or upon the inherent power of an appellate court to correct an error ex mero mo tu.” This observation was not necessary to the decision of Berman, it was not followed up by any discussion of authority as to such matters, nor was there any need in that case for such discusssion.
In Wolfe v. State, supra, the trial judge, after denying a motion for a directed verdict (which the judge had made himself in an effort to aid a defendant without counsel), made a comment with regard to the strength of the State’s case in chief while advising the defendant as to his right to testify or not to testify. This comment was made in an effort to help the defendant in deciding whether or not to testify, but it was made before the jury and its effect was strongly prejudicial. Though this comment was not actually a part of the court’s instructions, it had much the same effect as if it had been. Rule 739 g (now 756 g) was relied upon by a majority of the Court to correct a plain error material to the rights of the accused. There, however, the defendant himself sought a reversal and a new trial because of that comment (as well as on other grounds) ; he did not have a new trial thrust upon him.
Rule 756 g deals only with errors in instructions in a criminal case and, inter alia, authorizes this Court, on its own motion or the suggestion of a party, to “take cognizance of and correct any plain error in the instructions, material to the rights of the accused even though such error was not objected to as provided by section f of this Rule.” The error here found by the majority does not appear to be in the instructions, but in the court’s action on the jury’s verdict and findings. Furthermore, the Rule cited is a safety valve for the protection of the accused, not a device for his destruction; and so far as we can discover, in every case (including Wolfe) where an effort has been made to invoke it, whether successfully or not, it has been so regarded.
*315Section 16 of Art. 5, supra, affords no more support for the majority’s action. It provides that this Court, on a criminal appeal, “shall give judgment without regard to technical errors * * * which do not affect the substantial rights of the parties.” Here, the error upon which the majority rests its reversal of the judgment and its order which in effect restores the status quo as if there had been no trial cannot be classified as a “technical” error not affecting “the substantial rights of the parties.” No more can it be said that the Court gives judgment “without regard to” that error, whatever its nature. The judgment of reversal is founded on that (unassigned) error, however it may be classified. That it affects substantial rights of at least one of the parties, the appellant, could scarcely be seriously disputed, for the protection against the death penalty (or the permissible alternative of life imprisonment) which the jury’s verdict of not guilty of murder in the first degree, but guilty of murder in the second degree, gave him, is taken away. In short, a substantial right — quite literally a vital right — is put in jeopardy not by disregarding, but by seizing upon, an error.
Thus, none of the bases cited by the majority seems enough to support its sua sponte action. No lack of jurisdiction in the trial court is suggested, nor do we think it could be. Even if its judgment was erroneous, that would not impair its jurisdiction, for the power to hear and decide a case includes the power to decide it erroneously. The majority does not state the constitutional or statutory basis for its action. It seems to us that the Court is actually exercising some unarticulated, supposed inherent power. If this be so, we think that it involves an expansion of our appellate jurisdiction, a departure from the long tradition of this Court, and a venture into a new field, which should not be made, if it is to be made at all, without a clear statement of just what the Court is undertaking to do and the source of its power to do it.
If, as it does, this court, of its own motion, denies to the appellant any right or privilege to elect to submit to the judgment rather than to run the risk of a new trial, it seems to us regrettable that the court does not give any explicit guidance with regard to two questions which seem sure to arise on a new trial. (Cf. Rule 885.)
*316First, from the majority’s view of the nullity of the jury’s verdict of not guilty of murder in the first degree, but guilty of murder in the second degree, it seems to follow, as already suggested, that a plea of double jeopardy would be unavailing, even as to murder in the first degree. This is, however, a matter of inference, rather than of direct statement, and the question is a serious one. It has not previously been passed on by this Court, and in comparable situations there is a sharp division of opinion in other jurisdictions. See Green v. United States, 355 U. S. 184 (1957) and the catalogue of holdings in other states in Mr. Justice Frankfurter’s dissenting opinion (pp. 216-218). Since Green, the majority (then 19-17 of the 36 states which had considered the question) has now shifted so as to bar conviction for the major offense charged where the first trial resulted in a verdict of guilty on a lesser offense comprehended in the indictment. The instant case is a stronger one for such a result than Green, since here the appellant has not himself sought a new trial and since the jury made an express finding of not guilty of the more serious offense.
The second of the above questions relates to the effect of the jury’s finding of sane then. The majority holds that it was proper under the statute for the trial court to receive this finding, as well as the finding of insane now. But is the finding of sane then to be considered on a new trial as res judicata or not? If so, what gives this finding greater standing against the finding of insane now than the jury’s verdict on the issue of guilt, and is it just to treat this finding as binding against the defendant and to reject the finding in his favor on the issue of murder in the first degree? The majority leaves these questions unanswered.
It would, we think, hardly be a satisfying explanation of the majority’s failure to grapple with these problems to say that they may never need to be decided, because the appellant may never regain his reason and therefore may never be retried. Also, silence on the res judicata problem can hardly be swept under the rug by merely pointing out that the statute says that the findings on sanity then and now must be made and received, for it does not specify the effect to be given to a finding of sane then when coupled with a finding of insane now.
*317But passing all this, we are convinced that the Maryland law is not, and should not be, as stated in the quotation from Price v. State, supra at 499. We recently took occasion to criticize that opinion in Berman v. Warden, supra, decided by a unanimous Court. We flatly overruled Price on the jurisdictional point asserted by Judge Parke who wrote the majority opinion. The passage quoted from his opinion states that if the accused is so incapacitated at the time of trial as “to prevent him from properly conducting or advising as to the conduct of his defence,” he should not be tried. This correctly states one of the rules laid down by Hale and Blackstone. But it does not follow that “whether he be sane or insane when the crime was committed, if found by the jury to be insane at the time of the trial, the court would ignore all but this verdict * *
It was Judge Parke’s conclusion that because the verdict nullified the trial the court lost jurisdiction ab initio, a conclusion we overruled in Berman, supra. It is our view that the verdict of insane now interdicts the imposition and carrying out of sentence, but does not in any and all circumstances vitiate everything else in the entire trial.
The majority, we understand, would concede that a finding of insane then, though accompanied by a finding of insane now, would operate as an acquittal of the offense charged. We see no reason why effect should not equally be given to a verdict of not guilty, though based not upon insanity at the time of the offense, but upon self-defense, or upon evidence tending to show that the accused did not commit the act charged, even though the jury might find him insane at the time of trial. See State v. Wade, 61 S. W. 800 (Mo.), and State v. Porter, 111 S. W. 529 (Mo.), holding that self-defense and insanity then are not inconsistent defenses and that a verdict of not guilty may be based upon either or both. Cf. Regina v. Roberts, [1954] 2 Q. B. 329. There the accused was a deaf mute, who had no certain means of communication with counsel. Devlin, J. held that defense counsel might go ahead with the trial on the merits “to test the prosecution’s case,” without surrendering the right to urge that the defendant was unfit to plead. We also see no reason in a case like the present why effect should not be given to a verdict of not guilty on the most serious charge comprehended in the indictment.
*318Part of the confusion arises, we think, from the various meanings of the word “insane.” One of the established meanings of the term, as used by Hale and Blackstone, was capacity to stand trial, or to comprehend the penalty imposed, and a second meaning was and is that of criminal responsibility, or capacity to form a criminal intent, now embodied in the McNaghten rule adopted in Maryland in Spencer v. State, 69 Md. 28 (1888). McNaghten was tried in 1843 and acquitted. The propriety of the instructions given to the jury was the subject of debate in the House of Lords, and the Judges rendered opinions thereon. The Maryland statutes now under consideration, Code (1957), Art. 59, sec. 7 (and Code (1963 Supp.), Art. 59, sec. 8), were originally enacted, long before the McNaghten rule was formulated, by Chapter 197, Acts of 1826, and were based on 39 and 40 Geo. III, Chapter 94 (1800). In Carr, Suggestion of Insanity in Criminal Cases, p. 9, it is noted that the English Statute was enacted after one Hadfield had been acquitted in 1800 on the ground of insanity, and “it was doubted if at common law there was jurisdiction in a court of oyer and terminer to confine a prisoner after acquittal, even if insane.” In this context, the word quite clearly imports a third meaning, whether the prisoner, if released, is likely to be a danger to himself or to others. This test, as well as the criminal responsibility test, we have recognized and applied in Salinger v. Superintendent, 206 Md. 623, 630, where the appellant sought release from a mental institution following commitment after a criminal trial at which he had been found insane then and insane now. He claimed to have recovered his sanity under the McNaghten rule. This was not enough for his release. In Hamilton v. State, 225 Md. 302, 307, we pointed out that in Chapter 197, of the Acts of 1826, there was no provision for a pre-trial examination of a defendant who had pleaded insanity, but there was a provision for empanelling a jury, now replaced by the provisions of sec. 7, which call for examination by the Department of Mental Hygiene to determine capacity to stand trial. Cf. Tull v. State, 230 Md. 596, 602.
Of the three tests prescribed which we consider here1 it *319seems clear to us that capacity to stand trial should now be determined by the court alone after referral to the Department of Mental Hygiene, that criminal responsibility is the only test under the plea of insane then, and that the plea of insane now (if it can properly be described as a plea) raises issues of present liability to punishment or of commitment to a mental institution. The plea of insane now cannot conceivably relate to criminal responsibility at the time of the act, nor can it logically be applied to overrule the medical experts and the court on the question of capacity to stand trial.
An examination of our statutes and of the changes made therein from time to time seems to strengthen our view on this matter. Under Ch. 197 of the Acts of 1826 the questions of sanity or insanity then and now were to be tried by the jury empanelled to try the case. Ch. 699 of the Acts of 1916 added a provision authorizing the court to have a preliminary mental examination of the accused to be made by a commission which was a predecessor of the Department of Mental Hygiene, and permitted the commitment of the accused on such examination instead of on a jury’s finding. The Price case, decided in 1930, produced major revisions of the law by Ch. 436 of the Acts of 1931. A preliminary determination of insanity then “and/or” now was to be made by a jury specially empanelled for that purpose (which was not the jury to try the question of guilt). Provision was made for all possible combinations of findings on insanity then and now, and the provision for a preliminary mental examination by a commission was omitted. The provisions of the prior law held “jurisdictional” in Price could no longer have such effect. The 1931 Act was, however, short lived, perhaps because of the burden of dual jury trials. By Ch. 81 of the Acts of 1933, Special Session, which is substantially the same as Sec. 7 of Art. 59 of the 1957 Code, the jurisdictional holding of Price continued to be effectively nullified, but new provisions avoiding the Price holding were en*320acted under which the jury empanelled to try the case was again (and still is) to determine sanity then and/or now (“and/ or” being the statutory term). By the same statute, provision for a preliminary mental examination by a State agency (now the Department of Mental Hygiene), which might be ordered at the discretion of the court, was restored. We think that the purpose of this examination is the same as that of the examinations provided for under Secs. 9 and 11 of Art. 59 of the Code (1957) (see Hamilton v. State, supra, 225 Md. at 307), and is clearly to determine the capacity of the accused to stand trial. The statutory criteria for that differ markedly from those for determining criminal responsibility.
This was made perfectly clear at the trial by the testimony of the Superintendent of Perkins, just as he had made it clear at the hearing on capacity to stand trial. The court’s advisory instructions to the jury relating to the defense of insanity now were based on the test of criminal responsibility, just as were those relating to insanity then. The difference between the two tests was further and fully considered at a post trial and presentence conference between the court, counsel and the defendant, (the last of whom did not, however, make any statement) when the propriety of receiving and acting upon the verdict as to guilt was thoroughly discussed.2 Defense counsel took no position then, but both the court and counsel for the State took the view that the determination of capacity to stand trial had been settled by the preliminary hearing — a perfectly logical and proper position, we think. Very plainly, capacity to stand trial was not submitted to the jury. The majority opinion either equates the two kinds of insanity or denies any significance or relevance to the separate test of capacity to stand trial.
In short, as we see the matter, we simply have two materially different tests, and the answer under one, we think, is not and should not be determinative of the answer under the other, and we see no need to construe our present statute as requiring such a result. *321This precise question was fully discussed by Chief Judge Bond in his dissenting opinion in Price, in which he was joined by Judges Urner and Offutt. He said (p. 507) : “Would the right of a court to try a case be made dependent upon a finding reached at the end of the trial and by means of the trial? * * * Assuming the crime to have been committed within the geographical limits, the court has full power and jurisdiction to try a man who may in the end prove to be, in the opinion of the jury, insane now. The jury’s finding of insanity now, so reached as a result of trial, would be a perfectly well-founded, valid one, and the trial would not be nullified by it. On the contrary, the finding would merely give the court an additional duty, as under the English and other statutes, to order the man confined. * * * It might be said that not only does jurisdiction not depend upon the additional finding one way or the other, but it produces the finding.” In Berman v. Warden, supra, we have followed Judge Bond’s views on the above jurisdictional issue.
Chief Judge Bond further said: “* * * the only question which might possibly need to be decided to determine the rightfulness of going through with any trial would be the question whether the man is in a mental condition to' go on. But that question would seem to be no more jurisdictional than a question whether a man is physically fit to go on, or whether he is too sick. * * * It is to be borne in mind, however, that when, before or during trial, any question arises of mental capacity of a particular defendant to proceed, the prescribed method for determining that capacity is not the trial itself. * * * when any question arises of the capacity of the accused to conduct his defense or advise on its conduct, the question is referred to the Board of Mental Hygiene and settled by it.
Judge Offutt, in his separate dissenting opinion, said (p. 514) : “* * * the jury should have been told that, if they found that the accused was insane at the time of the offense, they were empowered to return a verdict of ‘not guilty by reason of insanity at the time of the offense.’ Whether he was sane or insane at the time of the trial was a collateral and an independent fact, having no necessary connection with his guilt or innocence, but which the jury were authorized to decide, not as *322bearing upon that issue but for the guidance of the court in disposing of the accused.”
As we have tried to demonstrate, a jury’s finding of insane now can have no reference to criminal responsibility, nor should it operate retroactively to vitiate the trial. The very findings of sane then and insane now depend upon the trial for their validity. The practical results of a contrary view are also unfortunate. It may well be as was testified by some of the psychiatrists, that the ever present fear of future prosecution is a major impediment to recovery, particularly where, as here, no credit was allowed against the maximum sentence for time spent in the mental institution, and none may be allowed in a future trial.
For all of these reasons, we think the three points raised by the appellant should be decided. We have stated our agreement that there was sufficient evidence to sustain the finding of sane then. We also think that it was also sufficient to sustain the verdict of second degree murder. We should be disposed to hold that there was no denial of the right to speedy trial under the circumstances. We think, however, the accused is entitled to credit for the time spent in'the mental institution pending trial, against the maximum sentence imposed, as he would clearly have been after sentence (cf. State v. Ewell, 234 Md. 56), and that he is entitled to stand on his refusal to seek a new trial'. With this modification we should affirm the judgment. If he ought to be committed because of danger to himself or to society because of his mental condition, this should be done through other procedures. Cf. Lynch v. Overholser, supra.
It is our hope for the future that the Legislature will step into the breach to cure what, to us, is an anomalous result. We think they should specifically provide, as has been done in other states, that time spent in jail or in mental institutions pending trial should be allowed against sentence, where disallowance extends the maximum time. The idea that the question of fitness to stand trial should be resolved retroactively by a jury, or passed on by a jury at all, is unsound. The present statutes clearly authorize prisoners suspected of being insane to be transferred to mental institutions, with credit for time spent there, and persons guiltless of a crime can be committed *323upon the certificate of two physicians. In 5 Wharton’s, Criminal Procedure (Anderson’s Ed.), sec. 2023, it is said: “on such inquiry [capacity to stand trial] there is no right to a jury trial except when conferred by statute.”
A possible solution, in addition to the above suggestion, might be to amend secs. 7 and 8(a) of Art. 59 of the present code so as: (1) to provide expressly for a hearing and determination by the court alone, either of its own motion or upon application of either party, to determine in advance whether the accused is mentally capable of standing trial (a procedure which we think is permissible under the present statute, and which was followed in this case) ; (2) to eliminate provisions for a finding by the jury as to the accused’s sanity at the time of trial; (3) to provide that when a defendant has pleaded guilty by reason of insanity, but that defense fails and he is found guilty, he may, before sentence is imposed, be committed to a mental institution for examination, evaluation, and report, upon application of either party or by the court of its own motion; (4) to provide that if such report shows that the defendant is, by reason of mental disease or defect, incapable of understanding punishment or the reason for it, sentence shall be deferred and he shall be recommitted to a mental institution; and (5) to provide that if such report shows that the defendant is mentally capable of understanding punishment, but is, by reason of mental disease or defect, a danger to himself or to the safety of others, he may be sentenced and at once committed to a mental institution as if the examination had been made and the prisoner transferred pursuant to sec. 43 of Art. 59 of the Code (1957). Under these suggestions no change would be made with regard to the jury determining a defendant’s sanity or insanity at the time of the offense, or in the provisions of sec. 8(b) of Art. 59, enacted by Ch. 43 of the Acts of 1963 relating to the commitment for examination and evaluation of persons found not guilty by reason of insanity.
We trust that the above suggestions may prove of some assistance to the General Assembly in finding the best solution to a problem which both the majority and the minority of the Court agree calls for legislative consideration and, we think, corrective action.

. Other types or tests of insanity or lack of mental capacity familiar to the law, but not here involved, pertain to capacity to *319execute a valid deed or contract (or will) or to attend to one’s business affairs, and capacity to testify as a witness. As to the latter, see Johnston v. Frederick, 140 Md. 272, 275; Contee v. State, 229 Md. 486, 491.

. At this conference the problem of double jeopardy on a new trial was clearly recognized and extensively discussed. Both the court and the two State’s Attorneys thought that this defense would apply as to a charge of murder in the first degree.