Jewell v. Director
204 A.2d 564, 236 Md. 643, 1964 Md. LEXIS 958
Court of Appeals of Maryland·Decided November 16, 1964·No. [App. No. 62, September Term, 1964.]·Published·Cited by 2 cases
Opinion
JEWELL
v.
DIRECTOR OF PATUXENT INSTITUTION
Court of Appeals of Maryland.
*644 Before HENDERSON, C.J., and HAMMOND, HORNEY, SYBERT and OPPENHEIMER, JJ.
PER CURIAM:
This is the third time that the applicant has been found to be a defective delinquent, but the first time he has applied for leave to appeal. The record contains evidence to support the determination of defective delinquency. It is well settled that the testimony of Dr. Boslow is admissible, although based in part upon the medical findings of others. Dickerson v. Director, 235 Md. 668.
Application denied.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Jewell v. Director, 204 A.2d 564, 236 Md. 643, 1964 Md. LEXIS 958 (Md. 1964).
204 A.2d 564 (Jewell v. Director) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Oppel v. Director of Patuxent Institution
205 A.2d 396 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1964)
Hirons v. Director of Patuxent Institution
205 A.2d 210 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1964)