Langworthy v. State

Moylan, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Notwithstanding a plethora of at least nine sub-issues raised by the appellant, John Alan Langworthy, in a 40-page brief, answered upon the merits by the State in some 14 pages and reargued by the appellant in a reply brief of 17 pages, we feel compelled to decide this case on a ground not remotely alluded to by either appellant or appellee. We hold that a ⁵⁶⁰ defendant, except under rare circumstances not here apposite, has no right to take an appeal from an acquittal. Judge William H. McCullough, sitting without a jury in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County, tried the appellant and found him not guilty by reason of insanity.

Chapter 399 of the Acts of 1957 repealed all prior statutes regulating the right of appeal in criminal cases and enacted in lieu thereof a number of new provisions relating thereto. State v. Mather, 7 Md. App. 549, 551 , 256 A. 2d 532 . As Judge Levine pointed out for the Court of Appeals in Lohss and Sprenkle v. State, 272 Md. 113, 116 , 321 A. 2d 534 : “Our consideration of the question presented here necessarily commences with a recognition of the principle that in Maryland, appellate jurisdiction is dependent upon a statutory grant of power____this is no less true, of course, in criminal cases____” (Citations omitted) See also State v. Adams, 196 Md. 341, 351 , 76 A. 2d 575 ; State v. Denisio, 21 Md. App. 159 , 318 A. 2d 559 . In terms of the statutory grant, the Annotated Code of Maryland, Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, § 12-301, provides in pertinent part: “Except as provided in § 12-302, a party may appeal from a final judgment entered in a civil or criminal case by a circuit court____In a criminal case, the defendant may appeal even though imposition or execution of sentence has been suspended.” It is axiomatic that a party in whose favor judgment was rendered cannot appeal.

Coates v. Mackey, 56 Md. 416 ; Mugford v. Baltimore, 185 Md. 266 , 44 A. 2d 745 ; Wright v. Baker, 197 Md. 315 , 79 A. 2d 159 ; Administrator, Motor Vehicle Administration v. Vogt, 267 Md. 660 , 299 A. 2d 1 . As the Court of Appeals said in Mugford, at 185 Md. 269 : “It needs no authorities to support the proposition that one cannot appeal from a decree wherein the relief he prays for has been granted.” ⁵⁶¹ To be sure, a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity differs in some respects in character from some verdicts of simply not guilty. A consummated crime requires the coming together of a guilty mind and a guilty act. Many verdicts of not guilty result from the failure of the State to prove the guilty act -- the actus reus.

In many others, however, by no means limited to cases involving a successful insanity defense, the verdict results from the failure of the State to prove the guilty mind — the mens rea. In the eyes of the law, both results are the same. There is no crime. The negation of the mens rea may take myriad forms —- a justifiable homicide in self-defense or an excusable homicide by accident, notwithstanding clear homicidal agency; duress, entrapment, mistake of fact, insanity, even voluntary intoxication with respect to certain specific intent crimes.

Whether a defendant wins because of the failure of the State to prove the actus reus, the criminal agency or the mens rea, he has won an acquittal