Truesdale v. State

Thompson, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Edward Robert Truesdale seeks a reversal of his conviction of murder in the second degree by the Criminal Court of Baltimore because of errors in the application of the relatively new statute setting out a different test for criminal responsibility. The record shows such confusion among witnesses, counsel and the trial judge as to the meaning and application of the new statute that his conviction must be reversed and the case retried. Under Md. Code, Art. 59, § 25 (a), which became effective July 1, 1970: “A defendant is not responsible for criminal conduct and shall be found insane at the time of the commission of the alleged crime if, at the time of such conduct as a result of mental disorder, he lacks substantial capacity either to ap ²⁶² precíate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law.

As used in this section, the terms ‘mental disorder’ do not include an abnormality manifested only by repeated criminal or otherwise antisocial conduct.” Mental disorder is defined in Md. Code, Art. 59, § 3 (f) : “ ‘Mental disorder’ means mental illness or mental retardation or any other form of behavioral or emotional illness resulting from any psychiatric or neurological disorder.” In Sherrill v. State, 14 Md. App. 146 , 286 A. 2d 528 , (filed January 27, 1972) we reviewed the statute and held that it was applicable to all trials beginning on or after July 1, 1970, irrespective of the law in effect at the time the crime occurred. In Young v. State, 14 Md. App. 538 , 288 A. 2d 198 , (filed March 2, 1972, cert. den. Court of Appeals of Maryland, June 6,1972) we held that the statute did not apply where the trial was conducted prior to the effective date of the new statute even though the case was pending on appeal on the effective date of the new statute. In both cases we reviewed the law extensively and there is no need for us to repeat that review.

The record shows that the crime was alleged to have occurred on December 1,1969 and the trial began on May 5, 1971. In both Sherrill and Young, swpra, we pointed out that under the new statute it must be determined whether or not the accused