Dickerson v. Director of Patuxent Institution

Marbury, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Applicant had been found to be a defective delinquent by a jury in January 1961 and was committed to Patuxent Institution. He subsequently filed a request for redetermination, and after a hearing held on December 20, 1963 before Judge Byrnes without a jury, at which applicant was represented by counsel, he was found still to be a defective delinquent. From the order recommitting him to Patuxent Institution he has requested leave to appeal.

Through his court appointed counsel he raises the following contentions: 1. The State’s only witness, Dr. Boslow, testified from reports made by others of the institution’s staff and gave no specific grounds for reaching his conclusions except the applicant’s past criminal record. 2. The persons preparing the reports on which Dr. Boslow based his conclusions were not present in court and therefore not subject to cross-examination by the applicant or his counsel. 3. He was unable to take the stand in his own behalf because of physical ailments. 4.

He has not seen nor read the medical reports. 5. He should not have been tried before Judge Byrnes who presided at a prior trial in which applicant was convicted of manslaughter. ⁶⁷⁰ 6. The evidence was insufficient to support the finding. (1) Dr. Boslow was competent to express an expert opinion based on a review of the records and staff reports of the institution.

Also antecedent behavior is a relevant factor. Queen v. Director, 226 Md. 664 . (2) The second contention has been rejected by this Court. Pierson v. Director, 235 Md. 654 .

(3) and (4) These contentions are not stated with the specificity required by Maryland Rule 894 a 2 (a). That rule as construed in Faulkner v. Director, 230 Md. 632, requires