Hoverter v. Director of Patuxent Institution

⁶⁰⁹ Henderson, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This is an application for leave to appeal from an order of commitment to Patuxent, following a third determination that the applicant was a defective delinquent. The applicant contends that it was error for the State to comment to the jury on the failure of the defense to produce a psychiatrist who had examined him, at State expense, and that such comment violated the applicant’s constitutional right against self-incrimination. The applicant further contends that a copy of his psychiatrist’s report was improperly put before the jury.

The alleged remark by the State’s Attorney was: “[A]t the outset I told you that the defendant-inmate is entitled to have a psychiatrist of his own choice examine him, consult with him and testify for him at the State’s expense. He testified and conceded he was examined by a psychiatrist of his own choice. What that psychiatrist would have testified to I am not at liberty to say, because I do not know. The psychiatrist is not here, we all know that.

But Dr. Boslow was here. He had all his medical reports, all of his daily reports, voluminous reports, at the institution.” There was an objection to the remark, but the trial court ruled that the comment was proper. We agree. It is clear the proceeding is civil in nature.