Boitnott v. Director, Patuxent Institution

Morton, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. ¹² This is an application for leave to appeal from an Order of the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County, Judge Samuel W. H. Meloy, sitting with a jury, dated May 3, 1966, finding that the applicant was still a defective delinquent and recommitting him to Patuxent Institution under the provisions of the Maryland Defective Delinquent Act, Code, Article 31B (1966 Supp.). Applicant alleges, through court appointed counsel, that the trial judge erred in allowing into evidence at the redetermination hearing the testimony of Dr. Vasconcellos (the institutional psychiatrist) concerning a telephone conversation he had with a Mrs. Rentz. While applicant does not provide any particulars as to the precise error upon which he relies by reason of the admission of this testimony, other than to assert that it was not part of the medical record, we have nevertheless reviewed the transcript of the hearing and have ascertained from the testimony that Mrs. Rentz phoned Dr. Vasconcellos on February 10, 1966 for the purpose of verifying certain statements that the applicant had allegedly made to her concerning his background. Dr. Vasconcellos testified that he made a note of the telephone conversation for inclusion in the applicant’s institutional record, since the information elicited during the conversation had a bearing on applicant’s diagnosis and mental status.

While applicant objected to Dr. Vasconcellos reading the note to the jury (presumably on hearsay grounds), he thereafter expressly declined to make any objection to the introduction into evidence of the institutional record which, as he knew, included the Rentz note. Clearly, the Rentz note was a part of the institutional record pertaining to applicant’s status as a defective delinquent and, as such, it. was properly in' evidence. Schlatter v. Director, 238 Md. 132 , 207 A. 2d 653 (1965); Pierson v. Director, 235 Md. 654 , 202 A. 2d 644 (1964); Pence v. Director, 235 Md. 651 , 201 A. 2d 834 (1964); Purks v. State, 226 Md. 43 , 171 A. 2d 726 (1961). Applicant further contends that he cannot receive from the Patuxent Institution care and treatment that would rehabilitate him * ,*