Adams v. State
204 Md. App. 418
| Md. Ct. Spec. App. | 2012Background
- Maryland CP 3-106 and 3-107 govern incompetent defendants and set time limits for dismissal or confinement.
- Ray v. State (410 Md. 384 (2009)) requires civil commitment if not restorable to competency within the statutory time and prohibits indefinite criminal confinement.
- Appellants Ray and Adams were indicted, found incompetent, and had their original felonies dismissed under 3-107(a)(2).
- State re-indicted Ray and Adams on the same charges despite ongoing incompetence, and continued confinement under criminal commitments.
- Court concludes re-indictments and continued criminal confinement after 3-107 dismissal violate CP 3-106, 3-107, and due process/equal protection, and remands for civil commitment or dismissal as appropriate.
- Appeals are properly before the court under the collateral order doctrine because the competency issue is separable from the merits and would be effectively unreviewable after final judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May the State re-indict an incompetent defendant after a 3-107(a)(2) dismissal? | Ray and Adams: re-indictment undermines Jackson and the five-year limit. | Adams/Ray: re-indictment without competency violates 3-106/3-107 and due process. | No; re-indictment must await competency or civil commitment. |
| Are the re-indictment orders appealable under collateral order doctrine? | Ray/Adams: orders are separable from merits and effectively unreviewable later. | State: collateral order doctrine does not apply. | Yes; collateral order review appropriate. |
| Does continued criminal confinement after re-indictment violate due process/equal protection? | Indictments while incompetent extend unconstitutional criminal confinement. | State may convert to civil commitment after five-year window. | Yes; requires conversion to civil commitment or dismissal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715 (1972) (due process limits on confinement of incompetent defendants; need reasonable duration to determine competency)
- Ray v. State, 410 Md. 384 (2009) (mandatory dismissal timelines; State may re-institute charges only consistent with competency and commitment schemes)
- Jolley v. State, 282 Md. 353 (1978) (collateral order doctrine; incompetent-to-stand-trial orders are appealable)
- Walker v. State, 392 Md. 1 (2006) (definition of incompetence and related procedures under CP § 3-101(f))