Department of Health and Mental Hygiene v. Kelly (Ct. of Appeals)

Filed March 14, 2007 – Opinion by Judge Lynne Battaglia

Anthony Kelly was adjudged incompetent to stand trial in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County because his delusional disorder prevented him from understanding the adversarial nature of the proceedings against him, and precluded him from assisting in his criminal defense. He was committed to a state health institution for treatment, where the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene sought to forcibly medicate him. The Department convened a Clinical Review Panel that approved the forcible medication and that decision was upheld by an ALJ. The Circuit Court for Baltimore City reversed. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Section 10-708 (g) of the Health-General Article of the Maryland Code (1982, 2005 Repl. Vol.) requires the State to prove that an individual, because of his mental illness, is dangerous to himself or others within a state institution before it can forcibly administer medication. Finding nothing in the record to show that Kelly was, because of his mental illness, dangerous to himself or others within the state institution, the Court determined that he could not be forcibly medicated pursuant to Section 10-70 8 (b)(2) and (g).

In a concurring opinion, Judge Alan Wilner raised a concern that the Court had addressed a broader question that the one presented in the case. Judge Wilner would have courts look at the nature and purpose of the prescribed medication when psychiatrists in a State hospital to which a criminal defendant has been committed believe it is necessary to forcibly medicate the defendant. Where the State could demonstrate that the purpose of the medication was not just to suppress but also to treat and ameliorate the symptoms that caused the patient to be committed in the first place, Judge Wilner would put the focus on whether (1) without the medication, those symptoms will not be treated or ameliorated and the patient will therefore remain ineligible for release, and (2) with the medication, the patient will likely become eligible for release. Judge Wilner would put the burden on the State to show both that the prescribed medication is for that broader purpose and that, alone or in conjunction with other medications or therapies, it has a reasonable chance of achieving that objective without undue side effects. Judge Glenn Harrell joined in the concurrence.

The opinion is available in PDF.