Court Opinion

ID: 9754830
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 20:15:36.873182+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:55:59.504731
License: Public Domain

Henderson, J.,
filed the following dissenting opinion.
I am unable to determine from the opinion of this Court just what error was committed by the trial court that requires a reversal of the judgment, and I find none. It is said that the verdict was tentative, but every verdict is tentative in the sense that it remains subject to revision by the trial court prior to sentence, at least within the limits of double jeopardy. I take it to be the duty of the trier of facts to render a verdict promptly while the facts are fresh in mind. Even if there had been a motion to continue the case or hold the case sub curia, and there was none, it would have *358been well within the trial court’s discretion to have overruled it. Actually, counsel for the defense agreed to the rendition of verdict, upon the condition that the court would reconsider and strike it out if the report indicated insanity. The report did not so indicate. There was no breach of condition.
If the verdict had been deferred until after the report was received, it might have been error for the court to consider the report prior to verdict. In Lowery v. State, 202 Md. 314, 320, 321, it was argued that it was reversible error for the trial court to read and consider, prior to verdict, a medical report ordered at the request of defense counsel in a capital case. We said it was the better practice and preferable that such a report should not be “read by him at all before or during the trial”. However, we found no evidence in that record that the court had read or considered the report prior to verdict. Surely, it cannot be error for the court in the instant case to have followed the approved practice. Counsel for the defense admitted in this Court that he had no ground for a motion for new trial and voluntarily abandoned such a motion.
It is settled law that the trial court may consider the report prior to sentence, even without cross-examination of the reporter. The opinion of this Court holds that it was not reversible error for the trial court not to have called on the accused to make a further statement at the time of sentence. The accused had, of course, taken the stand and made a full statement during the trial. I suppose that this ruling would also apply to defense counsel, although it would appear that counsel was heard on that occasion. If we assume that the trial court should have furnished a copy of the report to defense counsel as soon as it was received, I do not see how this would have helped the defense, since the report was unfavorable. Dr. Guttmacher found that the accused knew the difference between right and wrong and was able to appreciate the consequences of his acts. Under settled law, this is enough to establish criminal responsibility. In substance, the opinion of the expert was that the accused had the requisite mentality, although impaired by alcoholism, to form a criminal intent. The court did, of course, furnish a photo*359static copy of the report to counsel upon the petition filed immediately after sentence. In his letter to counsel, the trial court stated that he had offered to permit counsel to see his copy prior to the sentence. Under these circumstances, I can find no prejudice in the failure to furnish a copy sooner. There was no motion to strike the judgment and sentence on this or any other ground.
This Court has remanded the case for a new trial. On a retrial, even if a plea of insanity is entered, Dr. Guttmacher, if called by the defense, will hardly support the plea on the basis of his report, and it will not be incumbent upon the State to prove sanity. Thus, unless there be newly discovered evidence, of which there is no suggestion or proffer, the report will not be put in evidence prior to verdict, and if considered prior to sentence would presumably carry no more weight than it did in the trial now set aside. In any event, it is settled that we cannot review a sentence.
It is a usual and salutary thing for the trial court to order a report upon the request of defense counsel. If we are now holding that a trial court does so at the risk of a reversal, unless the reporter is put on the stand prior to verdict, even where there is no plea of insanity and the report does not support such a defense, I think the position is quite untenable. I fear that the decision in this case may prove confusing to the trial courts, and have an unfortunate effect in other cases.