O'CONNOR v. State

Henderson, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. In 1959 the appellant had been committed to Patuxent Institution as a defective delinquent, but in 1962 he had been placed on a “work out — live in” status. While on this schedule, and while employed at Cypro, Inc. in Baltimore City as a machinist’s helper, he was apparently discharged. He returned next day and forcibly took money from two co-employees, an elderly man and a young woman, after he had threatened them with a screwdriver in the back and a letter opener in the throat.

He left them bound and gagged and went to New Jersey, where he subsequently surrendered to the New Jersey police. On December 5, 1962, he was taken before a judge in New Jersey, where he refused an offer of counsel and waived extradition. He returned to Patuxent in an automobile with Captain Ingram of that institution and Lieutenant Carter. The appellant was presented by the Grand Jury in Baltimore City on December 20, 1962, and indicted on January 10, 1963, on charges of robbery with a deadly weapon.

On January 25, 1963, he was arraigned and pleaded not guilty, not guilty by reason of insanity at the time of the offense, and insane at the time of trial. He was represented by court-appointed counsel, and elected a jury trial. Both employees testified and the State also introduced an oral confession made by the accused and reduced to writing. The jury found him guilty, sane then and sane now.

He was sentenced to fifteen years on each indictment, to run concurrently, and remanded to Patuxent. On this appeal the appellant contends (1) that the trial court ⁴⁶¹ erred in charging the jury that the burden was upon the appellant to prove insanity by a preponderance of the evidence, (2) that the court committed reversible error in admitting evidence of the oral confession by the accused, and (3) that there was reversible error in the proceedings prior to indictment, amounting to a denial of due process. 1. The State contends that the instruction was correct, but argues that even if it was not there was no reversible error because the defense produced no evidence of insanity sufficient to overcome the presumption of sanity. Thomas v. State, 206 Md. 575, Lipscomb v. State, 223 Md. 599 .

See also Saldiveri v. State, 217 Md. 412 , Dunn v. State, 226 Md. 463, and Hyde v. State, 228 Md. 209 . Hence the State contends there was legally insufficient evidence to warrant the submission of this issue to the jury. Upon a careful review of the evidence, we agree. Dr. Prado, the psychiatrist called by the State, testified that while the appellant had a personality disorder he