Opinion
[H.C. No. 102, September Term, 1957.]
Decided March 26, 1958.
CRIMINAL LAW — Insanity Plea — Examination Conducted by One Psychiatrist, and Accused Not Held for Thirty Days' Observation — Directions of Art. 59 of Code Not Violated Thereby. An accused, who pleaded not guilty to an offense by reason of insanity, was not denied equal protection of the laws, because the pre-trial examination to determine his sanity was conducted by one, and not by two or more, psychiatrists, and because he was not held for observation for thirty days, as he claimed Code (1951), Art. 59, required. The Court found no such directions in that Article. Art. 59, secs. 6 et seq. p. 643
HABEAS CORPUS — Evidence — Insufficiency of, to Support Finding of Sanity. The alleged insufficiency of the evidence to support a finding of sanity cannot be raised on habeas corpus. p. 643
J.E.B.
Decided March 26, 1958.
Habeas corpus proceeding by Arthur H. Clements against the Superintendent of the Spring Grove State Hospital. From a refusal of the writ, petitioner applied for leave to appeal.
Application denied, with costs.
Before BRUNE, C.J., and HENDERSON, HAMMOND, PRESCOTT and HORNEY, JJ.
This is an application for leave to appeal from a denial of a writ of habeas corpus by the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, on November 20, 1957.
On July 7, 1955, the applicant was charged with the crime of false pretenses and entered a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity. He was given a three-hour psychiatric examination before trial. At the trial he was found to have been sane at the time of the commission of the crime and at the time of trial and was sentenced to five years in the Maryland Penitentiary. He has since been transferred to Spring Grove Hospital where he is undergoing treatment, but is continuing to serve his term while there.
Petitioner alleges that he was denied equal protection of the laws, in that the pre-trial examination to determine his sanity was conducted by one and not by two or more psychiatrists and in that he was not held for thirty days' observation, in accordance with what the petitioner alleges are the requirements set out in Article 59 (Code 1951).
We find no such directions in that Article. (See secs. 6 et seq.) Moreover, the alleged insufficiency of the evidence to support a finding of sanity cannot be raised on habeas corpus. Wagner v. Warden, 205 Md. 648, 109 A.2d 118; Kohnen v. Warden, 202 Md. 658, 97 A.2d 329.
Application denied, with costs.