Summary
requiring proof by clear and convincing evidence in civil commitment proceedings
Summary of this case from Evans v. StateOpinion
[Nos. 78, 95, September Term, 1979.]
Decided September 11, 1980.
INSANE PERSONS — EVIDENCE — Clear And Convincing Evidence Is The Standard Of Proof Applicable In Hearings Involving Persons Incarcerated In Mental Institutions After Having Been Found Not Guilty By Reason Of Insanity At The Time Of The Commission Of A Crime — Code (1957, 1979 Repl. Vol., 1980 Cum. Supp.) Article 59, § 27B And 27C. p. 525
Certiorari to the Court of Special Appeals. (As to Coard and English: Circuit Court for St. Mary's County, Mattingly and Femia, JJ., in No. 78). (As to Williams and Hubbard: Circuit Court of Baltimore City, Bothe, J. As to Jolley: Circuit Court for Dorchester County, Edmondson, J. As to Moore: Criminal Court of Baltimore, Silver, J., in No. 95.)
Hearings to determine whether Ricardo David Coard, Neil Willie English, Randall Williams, Tyrone Jolley, Levon Moore and Arthur Hubbard met the standards for commitment to a mental hospital after a finding of not guilty by reason of insanity. The trial court found they met the criteria for commitment and an appropriate order was issued. Appeals were filed to the Court of Special Appeals. In No. 78 the judgment of the trial court was affirmed, Coard v. State, 43 Md. App. 146, 403 A.2d 826 (1979) and in No. 95 the trial court was reversed, Williams v. Superintendent, 43 Md. App. 588, 406 A.2d 1302 (1979). Petitions for certiorari were granted.
Judgments vacated; cases remanded under Rule 871 for further proceedings pursuant to Article 59, § 27C; costs to be paid by the State.
The causes were argued before MURPHY, C.J., and SMITH, DIGGES, ELDRIDGE, COLE, DAVIDSON and RODOWSKY, JJ.
In No. 78, George E. Burns, Jr., Assistant Public Defender, with whom was Alan H. Murrell, Public Defender, on the brief, for appellants.
In No. 78, Judith K. Sykes, Assistant Attorney General, with whom were Stephen H. Sachs, Attorney General, and Randall M. Lutz, Assistant Attorney General, on the brief, for appellee.
In No. 95, Judith K. Sykes, Assistant Attorney General, with whom were Stephen H. Sachs, Attorney General, and Randall M. Lutz, Assistant Attorney General, on the brief, for appellants.
In No. 95, George E. Burns, Jr., Assistant Public Defender, with whom were Alan H. Murrell, Public Defender, and Nancy L. Cook, Assistant Public Defender, on the brief, for appellees.
We granted certiorari in these cases to determine the proper standard of proof to be applied in commitment proceedings involving persons found not guilty by reason of insanity at the time of the commission of a crime. When the cases were tried, the statutory standard of proof in commitment proceedings was a preponderance of the evidence. See Williams v. Superintendent, 43 Md. App. 588, 593, 406 A.2d 1302, 1305-06. The lower courts found that the committees in these cases had been properly committed under the preponderance standard. In No. 95, the Court of Special Appeals reversed the trial court, holding that the proper standard to be applied was proof by clear and convincing evidence. Id. at 588. In No. 78, the Court of Special Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court. Coard v. State, 43 Md. App. 146, 152, 403 A.2d 826, 830 (1979). These appeals followed.
By Chapter 292 of the Acts of 1980, effective July 1, 1980, the legislature amended Sec. 27B of Art. 59 by adopting the more stringent clear and convincing standard of proof in commitment hearings. Under Sec. 27C of Art. 59 a person committed to a mental institution under Sec. 27B has a periodic right to a determination of whether he has a mental disorder, by reason of which he is a danger to himself or to the person or property of others if not confined in an institution for inpatient care or treatment. See Sec. 27B (e).
In view of the enactment of the 1980 law, we deem it appropriate in these cases to invoke the provisions of Maryland Rule 871 and remand the cases for hearings under Sec. 27C, at which the standard of clear and convincing evidence shall be applied.
Judgments vacated; cases remanded under Rule 871 for further proceedings pursuant to Article 59, § 27C; costs to be paid by the State.