delivered the opinion of the Court.
Thе applicant, who had been sentenced to imprisonment for housebrеaking, was found by a jury to be a defective delinquent and he now seeks leavе to appeal.
The chief contention is that there was insufficient evidence to support the finding. The applicant was represented by coun *663 sel at the hearing. Ele had a rather long record of offenses as a juvеnile and as an adult, including car thefts and breaking and entering. Dr. Boslow, the director, and other staff officials of Patuxent reported that he “shows definite indications of emotional imbalance of a type which renders him a danger tо society”. Applicant was quoted as saying, “I could hardly control stealing. * * * I just dоn’t go along with society’s laws.” Dr. Waterman, an independent psychiatrist who exаmined him at his request, concurred in the findings of the Patuxent staff and recommended commitment. There was sufficient evidence from which the jury could properly find dеfective delinquency.
The applicant next claims that his commitment constitutes double jeopardy; that the defective delinquent law violates the еqual protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federаl Constitution and the Maryland Declaration of Rights by discriminating against him as a person or as a member of a group, and that the statute permits cruel and unusual punishment by providing for an indeterminate “sentence”. Similar claims advanced in
Eggleston v. State,
It is further contended that the statute is
ex post facto
in еffect, since the issue of his being a defective delinquent was not raised in the trial for housebreaking, thus depriving him in the subsequent delinquency hearing of the protections which must he afforded to one accused of crime. The short answer is that the statute is civil, not penal, in nature and its end objective is not punishment but treаtment.
McElroy v. Director,
Applicant maintains that he should not be confined exсept on definite proof of a specific crime. His contention is answered in
Blizzard v. State,
*664 It is claimed that admission of the testimony of the psychiatrists and other physicians who examined the applicant was a violation of the patient-physician privilege. The statute provides that the reports of the examining physicians, including that of the independent psychiatrist, when one is requested, “shall be submitted in writing addressed to the court.” Code (1961 Cum. Supр.), Art. 31B, § 7 (a) and (b). The purpose of the examinations is to aid the court or jury to determine the status of the person involved, and it is obvious that the patient-physiсian relationship does not exist and that the results of such examinations arе admissible.
Applicant alleges error in the admission of testimony by a psychiаtrist concerning prior offenses and convictions of applicant, learned by the psychiatrist from applicant himself and from court records. Even if we assume that proper objection was made, the contention hаs no merit. The underlying purpose of the defective delinquent law is to afford рrotection to society from persons whose behavior evidences a propensity toward criminal activity.
Height v. State,
The final contention, a bald allegation that applicant was committed to Patuxent solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence, merits no discussion. We have already found that there was ample evidence to support the jury’s finding of defective delinquency.
Application denied.