Moulsdale v. Director of Patuxent Institution

Prescott, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This is an- application for leave to appeal from an order of the’ Criminal Court of Baltimore, dated May 6, 1961, (after verdict of a jury finding that the applicant was a defective delinquent) committing him to the Patuxent Institution under the provisions of Code (1957), Article 31B. The petition for leave to appeal contains the following allegations : 1. Deprivation of constitutional rights “when the Court allowed prejudice by one of the Jurors,” purportedly influenced by attendance at another trial of the applicant. 2.

Since Juror No. 8, Florence S. Fulton, was pointed out by the applicant, a mistrial should have been declared. 3. Applicant contends that he is able to prove that Florence S. Fulton was in court as a spectator, while he was being tried for murder. 4. Acceptance by the Patuxent Institution of a recommendation for applicant’s commitment by a psychiatrist, who had not the required three years’ medical practice as required by the Maryland statute (presumably Section 3 (a) and 7 (a) ⁶⁷⁷ of said Article 3IB) deprived the applicant of his constitutional rights. The applicant makes his first three very vague contentions that the trial court prejudiced his constitutional rights by swearing Florence S. Fulton to sit as a juror; because she had attended, as a spectator, a prior criminal trial of his.

The record categorically contradicts the applicant’s allegations. The questions propounded to her before she was determined to be qualified