McCubbin v. Director, Patuxent Institution

Davidson, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The applicant, Collis John McCubbin, seeks leave to appeal from an order of 31 October 1972, recommitting him to Patuxent Institution after a redetermination that he is a defective delinquent under the Defective Delinquent Act, Code (1957), Art. 31B. He argues first that his continued detention is impermissible because he has been held in the Institution for a term longer than he would have served in the custody of the Department of Corrections, had he been credited with good time against his sentence. However, indeterminate sentences beyond the term of the originally imposable sentence for the purpose of treatment under the Defective Delinquent Act have been sustained repeatedly.

See, e.g., Shine v. Director, 244 Md. 712, 714 , 224 A. 2d 108, 110 (1966); Director v. Daniels, 243 Md. 16, 47 , 221 A. 2d 397, 415-16 , cert. denied, 385 U. S. 940 , 87 S. Ct. 307 (1966); Carter v. Director, 10 Md. App. 247, 250 , 269 A. 2d 172, 174 (1970). Applicant’s second contention is that the report of the independent psychiatrist should not have been admitted because § 7 (b) of the Defective Delinquent Act, authorizing the appointment of an independent psychiatrist and the admission of his report into evidence, applies ³⁵³ only to original and not to redetermination proceedings. He contends that without the statutory exception to the hearsay rule provided in § 7, the independent psychiatrist’s report constituted inadmissible hearsay when introduced by the Institution over the objection of the applicant. To support his contention, applicant cites Silvestri v. Director, 8 Md. App. 401 , 260 A. 2d 355 (1970), in which this Court held that the arraignment to which one is entitled under § 8 (a) of the Act at the commencement of an original defective delinquency proceeding is no longer one’s right when the proceeding is one for redetermination, because the proper procedures for instituting redetermination hearings are specifically prescribed in § 10, and do not require the formal arraignment prescribed by § 8 (a).

We disagree with the applicant’s contention. Both original and redetermination proceedings share the same goal of discovering whether the subject of the proceedings is a defective delinquent as defined in § 5 of the Act. Simmons v. Director, 231 Md. 618 , 189 A. 2d 644 (1963). It has been recognized previously that the achievement of this goal requires that various procedures applicable to original determination hearings be applicable as well to redetermination hearings, even though not specifically set forth in § 10.

Thus, the provisions in § 7 (a) relating to preparation of a report by the Institution have been found applicable in redetermination proceedings under