2670

LAWS OF MARYLAND

Ch. 501

Subsection (b) of this section is a significant change
unanimously recommended by the Task Force. As with other
defenses that a State may choose to provide in its criminal
law, the State may require the burden of proof to be on the
defendant who raises the issue. This change which results
in the fact of the defendant's being not criminally
responsible being established by the evidence at trial is
essential to another important change made by this title on
recommendation of the Task Force. The State's right to
automatically commit to the Department an individual found
not criminally responsible rests on "insanity" being proved
by evidence in court. See § 12-111 of this title. Because
being not criminally responsible is an exculpatory fact
related to criminal punishment, due process does not
preclude placing the proof burden on the defendant. Similar
provisions have been approved by the Supreme Court. "When a
criminal defendant establishes by a preponderance of the
evidence that he is not (criminally responsible)...by reason
of insanity, the Constitution permits the (State), on the
basis of the insanity judgment, to confine him to a mental
institution until such time as he has regained his sanity or
is no longer a danger to himself or society". Jones v.
United States, 463 U.S._______, 103 S. Ct. 3043 (1983).

Placing the burden on the defendant also avoids the former
anomaly of requiring the State to prove sanity beyond a
reasonable doubt unsupported by any criteria, standard, or
definition of sanity; then, if the State is unsuccessful in
proving the defendant sane at trial, requiring the State to
prove the same individual insane at a commitment hearing.

Subsection (b) does not alter the State's burden to prove
all essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable
doubt.

In subsection (c) of this section, a new provision clarifies
the current law of this State. The jury must first make a
determination as to whether or not the defendant committed
the criminal act charged. The term "criminal act charged"
is used to indicate that the trier of fact first determines
whether the State proved beyond a reasonable doubt all the
elements of the crime. This determination is made before
considering the plea of not criminally responsible. The
traditional theory that an insanity defense if proved means
that the defendant was mentally incapable of forming
criminal intent is not an established fact under the
definition of criminal responsibility in § 12-108 of this
title. "..as presently defined, neither prong of the
insanity defense -- either lack of capacity '[t]o appreciate
the criminality of one's conduct' [§ 12-108(a)(1) of this
title] or the lack of capacity '[t]o conform that conduct to
the requirements of law' [§ 12-108(a)(2) of this title]
is necessarily inconsistent with general criminal intent.
Second, the volitional prong -- the lack of capacity '[t]o