Alexander v. Superintendent

Horney, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This is an appeal from the order of the Circuit Court for Baltimore County (Proctor, J.) recommitting Archer A. Alexander to Spring Grove State Hospital following a second sanity hearing before the court without a jury at which the court found that the patient continued to be a danger to society. The patient was admitted to the hospital under a court order on July 2, 1959 as the result of “wrecklessly driving an automobile while intoxicated.” A diagnosis made at the time indicated that the patient had a chronic brain syndrome associated with a moderate brain trauma. There was also evidence of poor judgment in that the patient was unable to think clearly.

His condition improved and he was discharged on August 14, 1959, but was readmitted on October 21, 1959 after another arrest for drunkenness. At a meeting of the forensic staff of the hospital (of all the hospital physicians under the chairmanship of the superintendent) on November 10, 1959, the initial diagnosis was confirmed and it was recommended—on account of his mental condition and the conclusion that he would not be able to return to his home and work due to domestic pressures—that the hospitalization of the patient be continued. The record does not indicate whether the patient was ever the subject of other forensic staff meetings, but it does show that he was declared incompetent to handle his own affairs on February 16, 1961. ³³⁶ Following the first sanity hearing on December 14, 1961, the patient was sent back to the hospital for further treatment. Subsequently, despite many physical disabilities, the most serious of which was the condition of his heart, he was given some privileges on the hospital grounds.

In July of 1963 and thereafter he was permitted to leave the hospital periodically to go to church and to visit his family, but the latter privilege was suspended when he failed to return to the hospital on Christmas Eve in 1964. Later, the privilege was restored and he visited his family at Christmas in 1965. Dr. Imre Kopits, a psychiatrist and chief of the geriatrics board at the hospital was the only medical witness for the superintendent of the hospital at the second sanity hearing on March 8, 1966. Besides giving the hereinbefore related case history of the patient based on the hospital records, the doctor testified that he had observed the patient every day since October 19, 1965 and had worked with him in group therapy twice a week.

He thought that after several more months of treatment it would be possible to release the patient to a nursing home so that he could thereafter visit the hospital at intervals as an outpatient. When asked whether the patient would be a danger to himself or to society, the doctor replied that there was a strong possibility he might be a danger to himself if he resumed drinking because this could worsen his heart condition. He also stated he could possibly be a menace to others, particularly his family. The patient, insisting that he was well enough to leave the hospital, testified that he thought he could get back his old job or find new employment.

He denied drinking to excess and acting violently toward his family and did not remember the numerous automobile accidents he had been involved in. But he proffered no testimony as to his mental competency. His wife and daughter testified as to the conduct of the patient, such as striking his wife and shooting at her, while visiting his home. And, because they were afraid of the consequences, they did not want him to reside with them.

The lower court, as reasons for recommitting the patient to the hospital, took into consideration the fact that the doctor— who had based his opinion partly on the case history but prin ³³⁷ cipally on the daily observation of the patient over a period of five months—was of the opinion that if released there would be a strong possibility of danger to himself and others as well as the further fact that the patient had not met the burden that he had of showing that he was mentally competent. While the court was of the opinion that the patient had improved considerably, it was convinced that he still needed continual medical and psychiatric treatment either in the hospital or in an adequately staffed nursing home. The questions on appeal are: (i) whether the evidence or inferences therefrom were legally sufficient to support the finding that the patient was a danger to society or himself; and (ii) whether the continued detention of the patient was a violation of due process and equal protection of the law. (0 We think the finding of the lower court that the patient was still a danger to society was correct.

In essence, the test for the