Opinion
[No. 55, September Term, 1981.]
Decided January 7, 1982. Motion for reconsideration filed January 27, 1982; denied February 2, 1982.
CRIMINAL LAW — "Diminished Capacity" Defense — Medical Expert May Not Express Opinion That Defendant, Though Sane, Lacked Requisite Criminal Intent. Following Johnson v. State [Nos. 9 and 22, September Term, 1981, decided January 7, 1982], the Court held that the "diminished capacity" defense was not recognized in Maryland. Consequently, the trial court did not err in refusing to allow defense psychiatrist to express an opinion as to whether defendant, charged with first degree murder, was mentally incapable of committing an offense requiring "wilful, deliberate and premeditated" conduct. p. 479
J.A.A.
Motion for reconsideration filed January 27, 1982; denied February 2, 1982.
Certiorari to the Court of Special Appeals. (Circuit Court for Baltimore County, Brizendine, J.).
Larry Barrbenton Simmons was found guilty by a jury of two counts of first degree murder and was sentenced to terms of life imprisonment. On appeal, the Court of Special Appeals affirmed in an unreported opinion. The Court granted certiorari.
Judgment of the Court of Special Appeals affirmed.
The cause was argued before MURPHY, C.J., and SMITH, DIGGES, ELDRIDGE, COLE, DAVIDSON and RODOWSKY, JJ.
Michael R. Braudes, Assistant Public Defender, with whom was Alan H. Murrell, Public Defender, on the brief, for appellant.
Philip M. Andrews, Assistant Attorney General, with whom was Stephen H. Sachs, Attorney General, on the brief, for appellee.
Per Curiam. ELDRIDGE, COLE and DAVIDSON, JJ., dissent.
In this single criminal cause, petitioner Larry Barrbenton Simmons was charged in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County with two counts of first degree murder. At the ensuing jury trial, Simmons did not dispute that sometime during the late evening or early morning of February 5-6, 1980, he forceably entered the home of his estranged wife and, with a knife, stabbed her as well as her male companion to death. With pleas of not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity as to each count having been seasonably filed, it developed at trial that the sole contested issues involved (i) the petitioner's sanity, and, alternatively, (ii) his capacity to form the requisite intent to commit first degree murder so as to reduce culpability of guilt of less serious crimes.
With respect to the sanity issue, a defense psychiatrist was permitted at trial to opine that, because of a "depressive psychosis," Simmons lacked substantial capacity to conform his conduct to the requirements of law and was insane. See Code (1957, 1959 Repl. Vol.), Art. 59, § 25(a). The psychiatrist was not allowed by the trial judge, however, to aid in establishing an alternative defense based on "diminished responsibility" by expressing an opinion as to whether petitioner, though sane, was mentally incapable of committing an offense requiring "wilful, deliberate and premeditated" conduct. When the jury returned verdicts of sane and guilty as to each first degree murder count, and Simmons received life imprisonment sentences, he appealed to the Court of Special Appeals where, in an unreported opinion, that court affirmed the judgment.
We granted certiorari to determine, in the petitioner's words, "the present status in Maryland of the so called `diminished capacity' or `diminished responsibility' theory in criminal cases." Since, however, we have this date fully expressed our views with respect to this issue in Johnson v. State (which we request be reported immediately prior hereto), no useful purpose will be served by repeating what was said there. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in (b) of part I of Johnson v. State we will affirm the judgment.
Judgment of the Court of Special Appeals affirmed.
Judges Eldridge, Cole and Davidson dissent for the reasons expressed in the dissenting opinion by Judge Eldridge in Johnson v. State, reported immediately prior to this case.