Rice v. Director of Patuxent Institution

Horney, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This nineteen year old applicant, who had been previously convicted of housebreaking, was subsequently found to be a defective delinquent by a jury, and now seeks leave to appeal. In a petition filed in proper person, the applicant, claiming that he is not a defective delinquent within the meaning of the statute and that his detention as such is a denial of equal protection and constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, contends that he is mentally retarded and should be confined in Rosewood State Hospital rather than at the Patuxent Institution. He also claims that the presiding judge at the defective delinquent hearing was an interested person within the meaning of § 7 of Article IV of the Maryland Constitution in that the law pertaining to defective delinquents was a “pet project” of his.

In a supplemental application for leave to appeal filed by court-appointed counsel it is further contended: 1. That it was reversible error to allow the report finding that he was a defective delinquent to be introduced by the State because: (a) The director (Dr. Boslow), although he signed the report, did not testify ; (b) The director did not personally examine the applicant on behalf of the institution pursuant to § 7(a) of Art. 31B (1964 Cum. Supp.); (c) The report refers to the juvenile offenses of the applicant which are inadmissible under § 61 of Art. 26; and (d) The report is based on an examination that took place six months before the defective delinquency hearing. 2. That the court committed other errors in its rulings on the evidence; and 3.

That the failure to provide an unqualified right of appeal from a finding of defective delinquency is a denial of due process. The contentions made by the applicant in proper person are without merit. His first contention is meaningless. Even if he is mentally retarded, the statute defines a defective delinquent ¹³⁹ as one who demonstrates a propensity toward criminal activity and who is either intellectually deficient or emotionally unbalanced.

The report prepared at the institution shows that the applicant has an I.Q. of 66, that he is extremely unstable and impulsive, that his reactions are governed by his emotions and that the behavior pattern he displays is likely to continue unless restricted by confinement and treatment, and these findings were not refuted by the applicant. As to the assertion that the hearing judge was an interested person, there is nothing in the record to indicate that a motion for disqualification was made below, nor was there