Court Opinion

ID: 9695644
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 18:26:12.809115+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:15.399423
License: Public Domain

COLE, Judge,
dissenting.
The real issue in this case is whether in a competency hearing a court may base its ultimate ruling on evidence which does not comply with the statute.
The majority opinion holds that a cursory, one page “conference note” prepared by a team of doctors from the Clifton T. Perkins Hospital Center constituted sufficient evidence on the record, in and of itself, to find the defendant competent to stand trial. Because I believe that the Perkins “report” did not meet the minimum evidentiary requirements set by statute, I dissent.
The inadequacy of this report and its failure to comply with the statute were the basis of Sangster’s objection. At the hearing, his counsel stated:
*578Your Honor, I’m going to object to the Court’s notice and reading of their evaluation. All we have is a one or two page conclusionary [sic] statement made by the doctors with no basis in facts. I certainly believe that an opportunity to cross-examine their conclusions is more than warranted in this case.
The majority is wrong in summarily dismissing the issue of whether Sangster’s competency should have been determined on the basis of this particular report. The Court brushes aside this issue and focuses on whether the defense should have been allowed to cross-examine the Perkins doctors.
As I see it, the majority misses Sangster’s point that the trial judge failed to determine competency upon “evidence presented on the record,” as required by Md.Code (1982, 1987 Cum.Supp.) Health-General Article § 12-104.1 23Unfor-tunately, the Court fails to grasp the import of that section, which requires filing of a complete report following the competency examination. This was not done and, consequently, Sangster’s competency determination was not based upon “evidence presented on the record.”
The majority relies heavily upon cases applying former Title 18 U.S.C. § 4244 to “demonstrate[ ] by comparison" that Sangster’s right not to be tried while incompetent was adequately protected. However, unlike Health-General § 12-104, which calls for the court to be provided a complete competency examination report, § 4244 included no such specific mandate. The majority fails to discern this crucial distinction.
*579Apparently desiring to avoid any substantive discussion of whether the statute has been complied with, the majority asserts in footnote three that no issue is presented as to whether the report constituted a “complete report” within the meaning of § 12-104(d). The majority’s rationale suffers from internal inconsistency. On the one hand, it recognizes the importance of compliance with § 12-104 in determining what qualifies as “evidence presented on the record.” On the other hand, it contends that whether the Perkins report was “complete” within the meaning of § 12-104(d) is a non-issue. I believe that such an issue is presented and that its proper resolution is central to this case.
After recognizing that compliance with § 12-104 is a prerequisite to qualifying a proffered exhibit as “evidence presented on the record,” the majority contends that § 12-104(d) was complied with because the so-called report was forwarded to the trial court, the State’s Attorney, and the defense counsel. The majority disregards § 12-104(d)’s requirement that the report be “complete.” In my view, the Perkins report was far from a “complete report” and, consequently, § 12-104(d) was not complied with. The word “complete” is not merely adjectival but is a statutory requirement. In fact, as the legislative history makes clear, the General Assembly’s intent was to require a “full and complete report.”2
We discussed the rationale behind such a requirement in Raithel v. State, 280 Md. 291, 372 A.2d 1069 (1977). There *580we criticized the practice, in determining a defendant’s competency to stand trial, of placing
a premium on a conclusory [psychiatric] opinion, which contributes little to the resolution of the difficult task confronting the trial judge. ‘To the extent that psychiatric testimony is utilized, ... it should be descriptive of the defendant’s condition rather than conclusory.’ (Citation omitted).
Id. at 303, 372 A.2d 1069.
The Perkins synopsis considered by the trial court at Sangster’s competency hearing suffered from the same shortcoming that we disapproved in Raithel. Following a superficial description of the defendant, the report set forth as follows a series of purely conclusory “forensic opinions”:
FORENSIC OPINIONS:
Dr. O’Brien: Passive-Dependent Personality Disorder. Cannabis Abuse, by history. Competent and responsible.
Dr. Mokhtari: Passive-Dependent Personality Disorder. Cannabis Abuse, by history. Competent and responsible.
Dr. Fitzpatrick: Passive-Dependent Personality Disorder. Cannabis Abuse, by history. Competent and responsible.
Dr. Rojas: Schizophrenic Disorder, Residual., Passive-Dependent Personality Disorder. Cannabis Abuse, by history. Competent and responsible.
FINAL OPINIONS: (1) Passive-Dependent Personality Disorder, (unanimous)
(2) Cannabis Abuse, by history, (unanimous)
(3) Schizophrenic Disorder, Residual, (minority)
The report concluded, without elaboration, that Sangster was able to understand the nature and object of the proceedings against him and to assist in his own defense. In the absence of any explanation or foundation for the above opinions, such as specific observations made and evaluative methods used, the report’s bare-bones conclusions were of *581dubious value in determining competency. Lacking such information, the report failed in its essential purpose as a fact-finding tool.
The Perkins report stood in stark contrast to the testimony offered by Sangster’s expert witness, Dr. Richard Epstein. Dr. Epstein testified on direct and cross-examination as to his medical training and experience in the psychiatric field, and provided a detailed factual foundation for his conclusion that the defendant was incompetent to stand trial. On the other hand, the Perkins report offered no such foundation for its bald assertions; moreover, it failed to set forth any particular training or experience which qualified these doctors to render expert opinions. Nevertheless, the majority gives its nod of approval to the trial court’s consideration of the report merely because the judge requested the report’s preparation and because it was filed with the clerk.
In summary, the Perkins memorandum did not constitute a “complete report” as required by statute. To the contrary, they were statements before the court unsupported by any case history information, psychiatric examination results, or analysis of any kind giving rise to the conclusions offered. Consequently, it did not qualify as “evidence presented on the record” and should not have been regarded by the trial judge as sufficient to support a finding of competence. In addition, given the Court’s view that a competency report may be considered as evidence on the record even though the examining doctors are not made available for cross-examination, strict compliance with the statutory requirement of a full and complete report as an evidentiary prerequisite becomes all the more imperative. I believe the majority makes a grievous error in placing its imprimatur on such a slipshod response to a statutory procedure.
ADKINS, J., has authorized me to say that he joins in this dissenting opinion.

. Section 12-104 provides in pertinent part:
(d) Report on examination.—(1) If a court orders an examination under this section, the Department shall:
(i) Examine the defendant; and
(ii) Send a complete report of its findings:
1. To the court;
2. To the State’s Attorney; and
3. To the defense counsel.

. The Task Force Comment to § 12-104 indicates that it replaced Md.Code (1982) H-G § 12-103 without pertinent substantive change. The Revisor's Note to former § 12-103 states that "[t]his section is new language derived without substantive change from the third through the seventh sentences of former Article 59, § 23____”
Md.Code (1957, 1979 Repl.Vol.) Article 59, § 23 in relevant part provided:
____ Whenever any defendant shall be referred to the Department of Mental Hygiene for an examination of his competency to stand trial under this section, he shall be examined and a jull and complete report of findings shall be forwarded to the court____ (Emphasis supplied).