Mastromarino v. Director of Patuxent Institution

Pbr Curiam. On 8, August, 1963, applicant pleaded guilty to a charge of larceny. Following a pre-sentence investigation, an indeterminate sentence not to exceed three years in the Maryland Institution for Men was imposed upon him. On 13, November, 1963, he was ordered to Patuxent for an examination pursuant to § 7 of Art. 31 B of the Code (1957 Cum.

Supp. 1965), and on 13, January, 1965, following a determination of Defective Delinquency by a jury, he was ordered to Patuxent for confinement and treatment. On 10, February, 1965, this application for leave to appeal was filed. Disposition of this application has been delayed pending the decision in Director v. Daniels, 243 Md. 16 (1966), which disposes of the following allegations of the applicant: 1. That the Patuxent report was inadmissible because it contained hearsay evidence. 2.

That the Defective Delinquent proceedings subjected the applicant to double jeopardy. 3. That the applicant was a danger to property only and therefore couldn’t constitutionally be treated as a defective delinquent. In addition the applicant alleges that the evidence was insufficient to show he was an actual danger to society. The Patuxent report, the testimony of the institute psychologist and the criminal record of the applicant are clearly sufficient to support the verdict of the jury.

Johns v. Director, 239 Md. 411 , 211 A. 2d 751 (1965) and cases cited therein. The applicant attacks the admissibility of the Patuxent report because no psychiatrist testified. The report was read by a staff psychologist. No particular procedure is provided by the stat ⁷⁰⁶ ute (Art. 31 B) for admitting the report into evidence nor is there any requirement that either the director or an examining psychiatrist testify at the hearing.

The report is admissible even though it contains the findings of persons who do not testify. Rice v. Director, 238 Md. 137 , 207 A. 2d 616 (1965). The report is