Schultz v. Director of Patuxent Institution

Henderson, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This application for leave to appeal is from an order recommitting the applicant to Patuxent Institution after a jury had found him to be a defective delinquent on July 20, 1961. In 1955 the applicant was found guilty of perverted practice, given a two-year suspended sentence, and placed on probation for three years. The following year he was convicted of housebreaking and given a two-year sentence.

He was admitted to Patuxent on March 3, 1956. On January 27, 1957, he was found to be a defective delinquent by the Criminal Court of Baltimore. The present application arises out of a request for redetermination. The first point raised by counsel appointed for the applicant is that the lower court erred in permitting Dr. Boslow and Dr. Manne to express their several opinions that the defendant was a defective delinquent.

It is argued that to permit these witnesses to testify as to the ultimate issue in the case usurped the function of the jury. But under the statute, Code (1961 Supp.), Art. 31B, sec. 7, at least three persons, on behalf of the institution, were required to examine the applicant, and to “determine whether in their opinion, or in the opinion of a majority of them, the said person is or is not a defective delinquent.” They were further required to state their findings in a written report addressed to the court. As we pointed out in Fairbanks v. Director, 226 Md. 661, 663 , the report itself is admissible in evidence, even though it may contain the reports and findings of others. See also Ambrose v. Director, 224 Md. 656, 658 , Queen v. Director, 226 Md. 664, 665 , and Purks v. State, 226 Md. 43, 47 .

That the persons making the report may testify