Cannady v. Director, Patuxent Institution

Gilbert, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. In Bush v. Director, 22 Md. App. 353 , 324 A. 2d 162 (1974), cert. denied by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, sub nom., Mazan v. Director, on October 24, 1974; we had the occasion to reverse a finding of defective delinquency because of an Assistant State’s Attorney’s impermissible inquiry relative to the purpose of and the treatment afforded by Patuxent ⁴³³ Institution. We said that “questions employed . . . [and] designed ‘to sell’ Patuxent to the jury” were improper. Further, we cautioned against “blind or badly regulated zeal” because it might “encroach upon the rights of others.” We concluded in Bush that “the prosecutor’s zeal did trespass upon Bush’s rights . . . .” Apparently mindful of our holding in Bush , the State in the instant case set sail on a different course.

The course it chose appears to have been charted so as to circumnavigate Bush . The record reflects that Gregory Belton Cannady pleaded guilty in the Criminal Court of Baltimore to the crime of murder in the second degree, and he was sentenced to imprisonment for a period of twenty years. Subsequently, the Division of Correction requested that Cannady be evaluated by Patuxent Institution. The request was satisfied.

The Patuxent staff determined that Cannady was a defective delinquent within the meaning of Md. Ann. Code art. 31B, § 5, and so reported to the court. Cannady then petitioned for the appointment of an independent psychiatrist. Md. Ann. Code art. 31B, § 7b. The psychiatrist, who was appointed by the court, stated that he believed Cannady did not fit within the statutory definition of a defective delinquent.

Issue was joined, and the case was tried in the Criminal Court of Baltimore before a jury. The transcript discloses the following rebuttal argument, objection and the hearing judge’s ruling thereon: Assistant State’s Attorney: “ ... He [applicant] is going to be in confinement for a considerable period of time despite the outcome of this case. The only question is, ‘where’.

Now, it is not an issue in this case, where he will be, whether he is at Patuxent and gets treatment or he is back