Pouncey v. State

Murphy, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Cole, J., concurs in the result. The issue before us is whether a defendant in a criminal case properly can be found both guilty of a crime and insane at the time of its commission. Appellant was charged with first degree murder of her five-year-old son.

She interposed pleas of not guilty and insane at the time of the commission of the crime. The evidence at the nonjury trial in the Circuit Court for Howard County disclosed that the appellant drowned her son because she believed that the devil was pursuing him and that the only way to prevent him from going to hell was to kill him. The evidence further disclosed that the appellant was legally insane at the time the crime was committed. On July 1, 1982, the court (Nissell, J.) found the appellant both guilty of first degree murder and legally insane at the time of the offense.

The appellant was thereafter committed to the State Department of Health and Mental Hygiene for evaluation and commitment pursuant to Maryland Code (1982), § 12-110 of the Health-General Article. She appealed to the Court of Special Appeals, claiming that the verdicts of guilty and insane were mutually inconsistent and that she was entitled to the entry of a not guilty verdict on the murder charge. We granted certiorari prior to decision by the intermediate appellate court to consider the important issue raised in the case. ²⁶⁶ The origin and development of the insanity defense has been the subject of considerable scholarly and judicial attention. See, e.g., Young v. State, 14 Md. App. 538 , 288 A.2d 198 (1972).

In Maryland, the defense is defined by statute and court rule. In Code (1982), § 12-101 (d) of the Health-General Article, "insane” is defined as "not responsible for criminal conduct under the rule set forth in § 12-107 of this title.” Section 12-107 identifies the test of responsibility for criminal conduct: "A defendant is not responsible for criminal conduct if, at the time of that conduct, the defendant, because of mental retardation or a mental disorder, lacks substantial capacity: (1) To appreciate the criminality of that conduct; or (2) To conform that conduct to the requirements of law.” Maryland Rule 731 prescribes the method by which insanity may be placed at issue in a criminal case. Subsection a provides: "A defendant may plead not guilty, guilty, or, with the consent of the court, nolo contendere. In addition to any of these pleas, the defendant may interpose the defense of insanity as permitted by law.” Subsection b provides that the defense of insanity "shall be interposed in writing by the defendant or his counsel and shall allege that the defendant was insane at the time of the commission of the offense charged.” Accord: § 12-108 (a) of the Health-General Article.

Once properly entered, a special verdict on the insanity defense must be rendered. See § 12-108 (b) and (c). In Langworthy v. State, 284 Md. 588 , 399 A.2d 578 (1979), we held that a person found guilty of the crime charged, yet successful in asserting an insanity defense, could appeal ²⁶⁷ from the guilty verdict. Necessary to our decision was a finding that a guilty verdict is not inconsistent with a special verdict of insanity.

In that case, as here, there was a general plea of not guilty and a plea alleging insanity at the time of the commission of the offenses. We there set forth the effect of a guilty verdict on the general plea of not guilty and a special verdict that the accused was insane at the time of the crime. We said: "[In that event, the accused] has failed in what he sought under his general plea but attained what he sought by his additional plea, in that he shall not be held responsible for his criminal conduct. Two courses are then open in the trial court.

In its discretion, it may either turn him loose or, as authorized by Code (1957, 1972 Repl. Vol.) art. 59, § 27, commit him 'to the Department of Mental Hygiene for confinement in one of the facilities of the State for examination and evaluation to determine, by the standards applicable to civil admission proceedings under §§ 11 and 12 of [art. 59], whether such person by reason of mental disorder would, if he becomes a free agent, be a danger to himself or to the safety of the person or property of others. Upon the basis of the report by the facility, and any other evidence before it, the court may in its discretion, direct that the person be confined in a facility designated by the Department for treatment.’ ” 284 Md. at 594 . 1 In Langworthy, the claim was made that the finding of insanity was the functional equivalent of an acquittal. That argument had prevailed at the intermediate appellate court.

In reversing, we said: "The Court of Special Appeals dismissed Langworthy’s appeal, holding that 'a defendant, except under rare circumstances not here apposite, ²⁶⁸ has no right to take an appeal from an acquittal.’ Langworthy v. State, 39 Md. App. at 559-560. The fallacy in this reasoning is that Langworthy was found guilty of rape, and the dismissal of the appeal precluded appellate review of that conviction. As we have seen, the existing statutory scheme patently contemplates